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.