Your job is to analyze the reasoning involved in the following passage. You can do this by illustrating the logic involved. You should look for uses of logical operators such as conjunction, disjunction, negation, and conditional statements; sufficient and necessary conditions; and the analogical reasoning involved in the argument. Upon completion of your analysis, answer the question that follows.
The Court's opinion in Haslip went on to describe the checks Alabama places on the jury's discretion postverdict -- through excessiveness review by the trial court, and appellate review, which tests the award against specific substantive criteria. While postverdict review of that character is not available in Oregon, the seven factors against which Alabama's Supreme Court tests punitive awards strongly resemble the statutory criteria Oregon's juries are instructed to apply. And this Court has often acknowledged, and generally respected, the presumption that juries follow the instructions they are given. As the Supreme Court of Oregon observed, Haslip determined only that the Alabama procedure, as a whole and in its net effect, did not violate the Due Process Clause.
Assume the following key:
(A) The Court's opinion in Haslip went on to describe the checks Alabama places on the jury's discretion postverdict -- through excessiveness review by the trial court, and appellate review, which tests the award against specific substantive criteria. (B) Postverdict review of that character is not available in Oregon. (C) The seven factors against which Alabama's Supreme Court tests punitive awards strongly resemble the statutory criteria Oregon's juries are instructed to apply. (D) This Court has often acknowledged, and generally respected, the presumption that juries follow the instructions they are given. (E) As the Supreme Court of Oregon observed, Haslip "determined only that the Alabama procedure, as a whole and in its net effect, did not violate the Due Process Clause."
Which of the following accurately reflects the structure of the reasoning?