It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?

(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith

(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime

(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses

(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court（A）

(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal

a怎么来的？？？想了很长时间啊

Please look at the bold-faced words below:

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.

Choice A just refutes the statement above, hence is the correct answer.

说点我的意见，首先infer题的答案不是文中直接给的，要将文中的某信息做一些改变得出答案。并且如果lz看过ff135后会发现，infer题都是针对文章的一小部分信息（细节）得出，而不是像归纳题那样求得整体的结论。

再看选项：A 读起来没有问题，与文章的内容不冲突，同时不是文章直接给的信息，又是细节信息。（infer正确选项的特征都具备了）

b 要求减少对犯罪嫌疑人的保护。没有细节。完全是归纳的特征。而且文中的信息主要是讲证据是否有效的，而不是什么对犯罪嫌疑人的保护。无关

c minor criminal offences不对。这是文中没有的信息.警察可以rights violation但是不能犯罪吧。要不然他先进监狱吧。这是两个不同概念的名词，虽然中文感觉差不多。

d any 太绝对。不可能

c any means,不可能