Tough CR|Please Give Explanation

[namitb]

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

SPOILER:
A

[shsingh]

I would go with A here is the reasoning.

people say that : legally permissible CAN NOT be immoral. this means that everything which is morally correct is legally permissible. so law has to cover everything which is morally correct or else it's incorrect.

A is saying that: if two people are fighting over the morals and wants to know what morally right - it is posisble that law does not cover it. If this is true - it is against whats been said in the argument.

[vinscorpion]

IMO - A

As the "inconceivable that something that is legally permissible could be immoral" says legally permissible cannot be immoral.

A-> This tells us that, they belief all circumstance are not covered by law, so they are not consistent with all the cases. Thus, those people can take a side saying law doesnt say anything about it, so it is moral. For example, if robbery is not illegal, then those people will not able to take robbery immoral, but it is in fact immoral.
B-> it is consistent with the belief of people.
C -> Out of scope
D-> consistent with the belief of people. As laws can define how moral the socieity could be.
E -> Out of scope.