Question

Of all the petty little pieces of bureaucratic arrogance, it's hard to imagine one smaller than that of the city schools in not admitting a British subject whose father is working-as a legal alien-for a nearby petrochemical company. Someone apparently decided that if the boy had been an illegal alien, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Texas case would have required the district to admit him, but since he is legal, there is no such requirement. That is nonsense. Which of the following best expresses the point of the author's argument? A. The city schools outside Texas should not base decisions on a precedent set in Texas. B. The stability of a parent's job should have no bearing on the educational opportunity offered his or her child. C. Bureaucratic arrogance has resulted in unsound legal interpretation. D. Legal sense and nonsense are sometimes indistinguishable. E. Both legal and illegal aliens should receive equal treatment.

Short answer

C. Bureaucratic arrogance has resulted in unsound legal interpretation.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the author’s argument.

The author argues that a British boy of a legal alien status has been denied admission into city schools because someone has erroneously interpreted that a U.S. Supreme Court decision, which appears to defend the rights of illegal aliens, doesn't apply to him because he is a legal alien. The author brands this as 'nonsense' and a reflection of 'petty little pieces of bureaucratic arrogance'.

Match the argument to answer choices.

You need to match the author's argument to the choices provided. The argument pertains to the mishandling and misinterpretation of laws due to bureaucratic arrogance.

Eliminate wrong choices.

Choice A is incorrect as the author never states that schools outside Texas should not base their decisions on precedents set in Texas. Choice B is irrelevant as the author never discusses the stability of a parent's job. Choice D proposes an argument that is too broad and isn't focused on the author's main point. Choice E is close, but the author does not argue about equal treatment between legal and illegal aliens. They argue against the misinterpretation of the law.

Final confirmation.

This leaves us with Choice C which directly pertains to the author's discussion on bureaucratic arrogance resulting in the unsound legal interpretation. This choice is perfectly in line with the author's argument.