- Fri May 07, 2021 4:43 pm
I'd argue that the "tempering" discussed in answer choice (A) is precisely not an extreme view, so that something "must be tempered" is a pretty modest statement. Consider what the scholars want to avoid (lines 34-39). The scholars are worried that judges may let foreign law influence South African law without any consideration of how circumstances differ between those foreign places and South Africa. Allowing such unthinking foreign influence would be extreme. Anything which considers, even a little bit, the difference in circumstances would "temper" that influence with a recognition of the potential difference in circumstances. So "tempering" the extreme position leads to a more modest position - at least considering the circumstances. Thus, to say that judges must temper their reliance on foreign law is saying they must NOT be extreme in their reliance on foreign influence. So answer choice (A) is saying something like "judges must not be extreme", which is, of course, to say that being extreme is bad! So I actually think that answer choice (A) is anything but an extreme answer choice, so that objection against it does not obtain.