Critical Reasoning

A law that is not consistently enforced does not serve its purpose. Law without
enforcement is not law, it is merely stature-a promise of law. To institute real law is
not merely to declare that such and such behaviour is forbidden, it is also to punish
those who violate that edict. Furthermore, those who enforce law must punish
without favour for their friends or malice for their enemies. To punish only those
own dislike while forgiving others is not to enforce law but to engage in the
arbitrary and unjust exercise of power.

The main point of the passage is that instituting real law consists in
(A) the exercise of power
(B) authorizing the enforcement of punishments
(C) the unbiased punishment of prohibited behaviour
(D) understanding the purpose of law
(E) clearly defining unacceptable behaviour


please, explain your choice.

IMO: C

P1: to institute real law --> declare forbidden behavior and punish the prohibited behavior.
P2: punishment should be unbiased.

A) -> Exercise of power ( I think "too big to conclude").
B) --> Its not only authorizing the enforcement of punishment but also an unbiased punishment.
C) CORRECT.
D) purpose of LAW ( First line talks about serving the purpose, but nothing related to understanding the purpose) ( Also I think its "too big to conclude")
E) There is nothing has been mentioned about characteristics of unacceptable behavior.

choice is between C and D.

since the statement says instituting law,hence the statement can be completed only by
C,which mentions about how to administer law.

IMO: C. What is the OA?

Thanks.

My question involves malpractice by a lawyer in the state of: Colorado

I retained the services of a well-established lawyer in 2010 for my divorce who, in hindsight, had a definite drinking problem. During the time I initially retained him, he seemed competent, but after several missed appointments, errant behavior and a revolving door of paralegals (some of which had no legal experience), I terminated his services after he blew through my retainer fees. During the 10 months I had him on retainer, I had to file my own motions and paperwork, write all my own correspondence with the opposing counsel, and generally handle all of my own case. He was argumentative, his hands shook, and would not return phone calls.

Shortly after I terminated his services I learned that this lawyer went on "TDIS" or temporary disability. The State Bar returned all my files to me. The lawyer's house went into foreclosure. My questions are a) do I have a case for some form of legal malpractice (knowing that damages in a divorce representation are vague at best) and b) would it be worth it to pursue, given the likely documented status of this lawyer's incapacity to perform law? Thanks for your insight.

https://www.thewilliamsonfirm.com/