Read the following passage excerpt:
"While early twentieth-century Legal Realists are frequently caricatured by contemporary critics as cynical rule-skeptics who believed jurisprudence amounted to little more than a judge’s post-hoc rationalizations for personal biases, their intellectual project was fundamentally far more systematic. The Realists sought to demonstrate that the prevailing orthodoxy of Legal Formalism, which presented adjudication as the mechanical deduction of conclusions from self-evident axioms, obscured the substantive policy choices inherently driving judicial outcomes. By analyzing the late nineteenth-century entrenchment of the *fellow-servant rule*—a doctrine that shielded employers from liability for workplace injuries caused by a worker's peers—the Realists did not merely highlight an isolated instance of judicial cruelty. Rather, they utilized this doctrine to expose how formally sound deductions from the abstract premise of 'freedom of contract' were selectively deployed to construct a legal architecture that implicitly subsidized industrial expansion."
For what primary purpose does the author of the passage discuss the late nineteenth-century entrenchment of the "*fellow-servant rule*"?
- To provide a concrete illustration of how the Realists demonstrated that seemingly objective legal deductions were actually driven by substantive economic priorities.Cevap
- BTo describe the legal mechanism by which nineteenth-century employers successfully avoided liability for industrial workplace accidents.
- CTo argue that the Realists were primarily motivated by a desire to expose the judicial cruelty inherent in the doctrine of 'freedom of contract'.
- DTo identify the specific historical catalyst that caused early twentieth-century legal scholars to reject the methods of Legal Formalism.
- ETo illustrate the author's own contention that Legal Formalism was a fundamentally flawed approach to jurisprudence.