Option(B) is correct Option B has parallel construction and yet is concise.

Option(B) is correct There are two issues in this question. (1) Since the phrase in quotes is not actually true but is instead expressing a wish or desire for the future, the subjunctive mood should be used. Consequently, if I were should replace if I was (2) The word also is unnecessary as it is redundant and impairs parallelism: I would be ashamed...and also [I would] resign should be replaced by I would be ashamed...and [I would] resign A. the phrase is not in the subjunctive mood as it should be; the word also should be removed B. the phrase is in the subjunctive mood as it should be; the word also has been removed C. the phrase is not in the subjunctive mood as it should be D. the word also should be removed; the second would is not necessary as it is implied and understood from the first would since what follows the first would is a list E. the phrase is not in the subjunctive mood as it should be; the second would is not necessary as it is implied and understood from the first would since what follows the first would is a list

Option(C) is correct A semicolon is need to link two sentences. Of the choices with the semicolon, C is short and clear (and correct), D has merely in the wrong place, and E does not have a complete sentence after the semicolon

Option(A) is correct Use a semicolon between closely related independent clauses that are not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In this sentence, it is easiest to convey the two related ideas as separate and independent clauses. A. The semicolon separates the separate but related ideas, avoiding ambiguous, incorrect, or misleading modification B. the presence of which ... immediately following Act is illogical and distorts the meaning of the sentence to give the false impression that the Act ruled when in fact the Supreme Court ruled C. with a ruling that is wordy and is not a proper modifying phrase (Act, ruling thatwould be a proper modifying phrase) D. they illogically refers back to some observers and conveys the false impression that the observers made the ruling as opposed to the Supreme Court E. they illogically refers back to some observers and conveys the false impression that the observers made the ruling as opposed to the Supreme Court

Option(B) is correct When making a comparison, you must compare like parts (i.e., compare an argument to an argument). You cannot compare unlike parts (i.e., an argument with a person). To correct the issue, we must compare the prosecutor’s argument with the plaintiff's argument (i.e., with that of the plaintiff). A. the sentence illogically compares unlike parts (i.e., the prosecutor’s argument andthe plaintiff) B. the sentence logically compares the prosecutor’s argument with that of the plaintiff(i.e., with the argument of the plaintiff) C. the plural those improperly refers to a singular argument when the singular thatshould be used instead D. the phrase that espoused by the plaintiff is unduly wordy E. the word from improperly makes the sentence not parallel (i.e., the argument of the prosecutor is not parallel with the argument from the plaintiff)