reading comprehension

In the earliest stages of common law, a party could have their case heard by a judge only upon the payment of a fee to the court, and then only if the case fit into one of the forms for which there existed a writ. At first the number of such formalized cases of action was very small, but judges invented new forms which brought more cases and greater revenues.

Which of the following conclusions is most strongly suggested by the paragraph above?

a) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
b) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was economic considerations.
c) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did not form a coherent body of law.
d) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner.
e) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or the executive.

[Horsa]

In the earliest stages of common law, a party could have their case heard by a judge only upon the payment of a fee to the court, and then only if the case fit into one of the forms for which there existed a writ. At first the number of such formalized cases of action was very small, but judges invented new forms which brought more cases and greater revenues.

Which of the following conclusions is most strongly suggested by the paragraph above?

a) In most early cases, the plaintiff rather than the defendant prevailed.
b) One of the motivating forces for the early expansion in judicial power was economic considerations.
c) The first common law decisions were inconsistent with one another and did not form a coherent body of law.
d) Early judges often decided cases in an arbitrary and haphazard manner.
e) The judiciary at first had greater power than either the legislature or the executive.

[David L.]

So...what did this poster really learn from this?

[Horsa]

I accept your implied criticism of my response to the poster. You are right I didn't explain the terminology nor the complex nature of the sentences. I answered the question on a superficial level. I studied law earlier in life and assumed that the poster was studying legal English, was probably a lawyer or training to be a lawyer and would have no need of long explanations - wrong of me.

By highlighting the relevant parts of the text I followed the procedure one of my teachers used with me - it seemed effective as it made me analyse the texts in question myself, but was obviously not aimed at non-native learners.