Passage Summary: Laws aren't the final word on right and wrong; they are just attempts to follow a higher moral standard. Because of this, it's sometimes morally okay to break a law if that higher standard says so.

Reasoning: Laws are only valid if they reflect a higher moral code; without this standard, we couldn't justify one law over another. Consequently, the moral duty to follow laws must allow for exceptions.

Analysis: This stimulus sets up a hierarchy where a 'transcendent moral code' sits above statutory law. The author's logic dictates that because the moral code is the 'measure' of a law's adequacy, the code is more fundamental than the law itself. Therefore, if a law fails to meet that moral standard, the moral standard would take precedence. You should look for an inference that suggests morality is the ultimate arbiter of behavior, potentially justifying illegal acts if they align with that higher code.