When it ruled that the government could not track an individual by

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



THE PROMPT

Issues?
→ Meaning?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not keep tabs on a person without a warrant.
The Supreme Court thereby curtailed (put restrictions on) secret operations, curtailment that, in turn, created new standards with respect to what people on future intelligence missions could do.

→ Verb Tense and parallelism
As a general rule, GMAC prefers simple past tense.

In the non-underlined portion, we see that the Court ruled (simple past) and curtailed (simple past)
The Court also changed the standards for special-ops intelligence missions.
Unless we have good reason to change verb tenses, we should try to keep the actions of the Court parallel.

THE OPTIONS

• which lacks an antecedent
→ which must stand for a stated noun in the previous clause, but no such noun exists
→ using "which" to stand for the idea expressed in the previous clause is incorrect—which must refer to a noun

ELIMINATE A


• having set is probably not the best verb to establish parallelism or to maintain continuity
• having set arguably could modify the previous clause and arguably could present the "result" of the previous two clauses, but having set is a passive form of the verb, a passivity that seems opposite to stressing the power and long reach of the Court
KEEP B, tentatively, but look for a better answer


• Aha! A third simple-past tense verb, set. GMAC likes simple past and parallelism. This option delivers both.
• Is option C better than option B? Almost certainly, but I will wait to decide that issue until the end.
KEEP C


• Wrong tense: will set is the future tense
→ This sentence refers to actions that already happened. The use of future tense is unwarranted.
→ That is, why are we hopping from the past into the future?

• no hints about the verb
→ We do not see a code word such as "eventually" (the Court will set new standards)
or "in the near future" (the Court will set new standards)
→ These actions already happened. The future tense seems out of place.

I would dump this option because I can compare it quickly to (C) in my head, and (C) is better than this one.
If you would like, you can keep this option and compare it to others.
ELIMINATE D


• improper comma splice
→ (N)ew standards were set for future intelligence missions is itself a full clause
→ we cannot "stick" two independent sentences together with nothing more than a comma
We need [COMMA + CONJUNCTION] to stitch together two independent clauses.
This option contains the comma but is missing the conjunction.
Comma splices are 100% fatal, every time, no exceptions.
ELIMINATE E


COMPARISON
Option C is better than option B.
→ set is parallel with the other two verbs and not a passive form of the verb
→ having set is not parallel with the other two verbs and is a passive form the verb
→ GMAC prefers usage of simple past when possible.

Eliminate B.
The best answer is C.



wali786 , I initially missed this part (I did not scroll down all the way)


With respect to the highlighted material, please be aware that you are declaring an opinion, not a matter of fact.
As such, it would be wise to think about how you frame your assertions as well as how to provide evidence that supports your opinion.

I and many others argue that the Supreme Court absolutely can set standards when it hands down a ruling, and often does so.

In "interpreting" the law, especially the Constitution, of necessity the Supreme Court says both what is not permissible and what IS possible.
In the United States, you cannot stand up in a crowded movie theater, shout "Fire" for no reason, and then claim First Amendment free speech protection.

Congress has not passed a law about this rule.
No President ever promulgated such a rule.

The rule comes from a Supreme Court case on the limits of the First Amendment.

It's true that the Supreme Court is supposed to be more restrained than the other two branches (executive and legislative) when it comes to "making" law.
This short article, here, explains why the author thinks that the Supreme Court makes law and is written in laypersons' terms.

You can also look at:
• any book on Constitutional Law written by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe;
• any book written by Harvard Law Professor Morton Horwitz, but especially The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice; or
• any book written by Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree, but especially, as editor with Amherst Professor and Dean Austin Sarat, When Law Fails: Making Sense of Miscarriages of Justice and From Lynch Mobs to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty in America (2006). I could list dozens more books and authors.
I decided to list, respectively, the person whom I think is the best Constitutional scholar alive; the best legal historian alive; and one of the best scholar-litigators alive.

I welcome thoughtful questions.

I think it's always good practice to be conscious of a statement's intellectual underpinnings and its effects—and whether that position can be supported by good examples and proven scholarship.

COMMENTS

wali786 , welcome to SC Butler.

I am glad to "see" everyone.
These explanations are well thought out, presented with good critical thinking skills, and (mostly ) easy to understand.
Very nicely done!

Stay safe, everyone. We are getting there.