Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for

Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral.

-- some people take moral base on law. They believe everything lawful is morally correct.--


Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that

(A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another-- not mentioned
(B) a legally impermissible action is never morally excusable -- something ilegal is always morally wrong; not mentioned
(C) governmental officials sometimes behave illegally-- opposite
(D) the moral consensus of a society is expressed in its laws -- correct
(E) some governmental regulations are so detailed that they are burdensome to the economy -- unrelated

D

ARGUMENT
[prem] some take their moral cues from the law;
[con] it is inconceivable that something legal is immoral.

SHOW THAT THEIR VIEW IS INCONSISTENT
(B) an illegal action is not excusable - this strengthens their view;
(C) if they believe officials behave illegally, how would this weaken their view?
(D) irev;
(E) irev;

Ans (A) if the law does not cover all situations in which one is immoral, then it is conceivable that something that is legal, is immoral.

A belief that: it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral.

(A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another
In fact, the citizen could do everything, including immoral behaviors, that the law doesn't prohibit.

=> Choice A

A is the answer in my view.

Premise: Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral.

From the above premise, for such people, anything that is defined according to the codes of law is moral, or in other words, morality is entirely covered by the governmental codes of law; hence, anything that is legal could not be immoral.
We are to determine which of the answer choices is inconsistent with the views of people who hold the view above.

(A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another
This is correct. For such a person described in the above premise, the law exhaustively covers the requirements of morality, hence a position that the law does not cover all circumstances whereby a person morally wrongs another is in conflict with the views of such people.

(B) a legally impermissible action is never morally excusable
B says that a legally permissible action is morally excusable. This is exactly the position held by the people described in the premise above, hence this is not opposed to their view. B is incorrect.

(C) governmental officials sometimes behave illegally
This has nothing to do with the position held by the people described in the premise. C is incorrect.

(D) the moral consensus of a society is expressed in its laws
D, just as it is in A, is exactly the position held by the people described in the premise. D is incorrect.

(E) some governmental regulations are so detailed that they are burdensome to the economy
The premise is about morality and how governmental laws sufficiently cover the requirements of morality. The information provided in E is completely out of scope. E is incorrect.

Some people take their moral cues from governmental codes of law; for them, it is inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral.
Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that

We are looking for a weakener here which basically dilutes the beliefs of people who think legally permissible things are moral.

(A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another - WRONG. Out of scope.
(B) a legally impermissible action is never morally excusable - CORRECT. A cumbersome option to understand, it talks about the opposite to what is mentioned in the argument. An action which is legally impermissible should be immoral but it can be excusable on moral basis. However, using 'never' takes the point of view to extremes which makes it immoral.
(C) governmental officials sometimes behave illegally - WRONG. Irrelevant.
(D) the moral consensus of a society is expressed in its laws - WRONG. Its the opposite to what we are looking for. The argument becomes more consistent.
(E) some governmental regulations are so detailed that they are burdensome to the economy - WRONG. Out of scope.

IMO Answer B.

I feel the Answer would be option (B)

The main idea of author is that if something is given in law it must be morally correct

Those whose view is described above hold inconsistent beliefs if they also believe that

(A) law does not cover all circumstances in which one person morally wrongs another-then it will deny the premise only

(B) a legally impermissible action is never morally excusable
This one goes with the beliefs in the passage

(C) governmental officials sometimes behave illegally - Out of blue

(D) the moral consensus of a society is expressed in its laws - this is a good option but its too much of generalizing according to me

(E) some governmental regulations are so detailed that they are burdensome to the economy - out of the scope

Posted from my mobile device