Jurist: A nation's laws must be viewed as expressions of a moral code that transcends those laws and serves as a measure of their adequacy.
Facts
Laws are expressions of an underlying moral code.
The moral codes transcends those laws and determines whether those laws are adequate.
conditionals (otherwise, any)
If the moral code weren't a transcendent judge of the laws' adequacy, then we'd have no way to prefer one set of laws to another.
If we say it's morally forbidden to violate a law, then we have to leave room for exceptions.
Evaluate
Our #1 focus on Must Be True questions is conditional logic. It's possible to construe the last two sentences as conditionals, but they don't quite present that way.
Do they chain together? No, there no common terms (there are shared words, but none of the triggers / outcomes would match each other or be the logical opposite of each other).
Does the first sentence provide a fact that triggers either rule? No.
The stimulus is written in argument style, which is weird for Must Be True / Most Supported. When that happens, we can often think about hidden Assumptions as potential inferences.
Why was the author saying we need to leave room for exceptions? Why would we say, ?
It seems to be hinting at the idea that we have this transcendent moral code that judges whether a law is adequate. If we morally judged a law inadequate (such as laws enforcing segregation or inhumane treatment of minorities), then we shouldn't be morally obliged to follow that sort of law.
Goal
Look for the most provable claim. It will probably be getting at this tension between a moral obligation to follow laws, broadly, and a specific exception where morality and law are at odds with each other (and morality gets the winning vote).