Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.

5. The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:

(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.

(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.

(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.

(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.（B）

(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.

这里的assume不是我们通常说的假设吧？b和原文并不矛盾啊，他说的是most,没说all.

c说的是数量，这种案件的多少并不影响它的和理性呀。

请帮忙解答，谢谢。

A is negated, there's no need to talk about whether the police man's beheavior is justified for good will or not, because they can do anything.

for C/D, if the effects of the rule are minor, it can be said that it doesn't hamper the justice, so be  Negative to CONCLUSION.

E, negate: there are other violations should be identified, so the rule will be necessary

斗胆发表自己的看法……请指正！

原文为不应该算进exclusionary rule的情况有两种：1）Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one,  2）and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith,

而B说most cases have involved presly technical violations，实际上对它取非的话，就算很多cases不是technical violations的问题，而只是good faith的问题，原文的结论the exclousionary tule hampered lao=enforcement efforts也是可以成立的

这样想是对的吗？