My objective is to analyze certain forms of knowledge, not in terms of repression or law, but in terms of power. But the word power is apt to lead to misunderstandings about the nature, form, and unity of power. By power, I do not mean a group of institutions and mechanisms that ensure the subservience of the citizenry. I do not mean, either, a mode of subjugation that, in contrast to violence, has the form of the rule. Finally, I do not have in mind a general system of domination exerted by one group over another, a system whose effects, through successive derivations, pervade the entire social body. The sovereignty of the state, the form of law, or the overall unity of a domination are only the terminal forms power takes.
It seems to me that power must be understood as the multiplicity of force relations that are immanent in the social sphere; as the process that, through ceaseless struggle and confrontation, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them; as the support that these force relations find in one another, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions that isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.
Thus, the viewpoint that permits one to understand the exercise of power, even in its more “peripheralâ€
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

I like C from 2nd paragraph.

Even the second paragraph states that "whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies"


meaning to say the general design of power is embodied in the formulation of the law.Law is derived from power.
Anser should be (D)
_________________

A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.