Passage Summary: Judges have two main rules: if there's a past ruling that isn't morally wrong, they must follow it. If there's no past ruling, they can use their own judgment, but only if the public doesn't strongly disagree with them.

Reasoning: Judges must follow existing precedents unless they are immoral; if no precedent exists, they can follow their own views only if those views do not conflict with public opinion.

Analysis: This is a 'Principle Application' question. You need to find a scenario that perfectly mirrors the conditional logic provided. There are two main paths: one for when a precedent exists and one for when it doesn't. If a precedent exists, the only way a judge can deviate is if that precedent is 'contrary to basic moral values.' If no precedent exists, the judge's 'own legal views' are only permissible if they don't clash with 'widespread public opinion.' Be careful of 'illegal' vs 'immoral'—the stimulus specifically mentions moral values and public opinion, not just legal statutes.