Answer:
The inference that is best supported by the passage is: A. Prior to the "Click it or Ticket" law, motorist could not be stopped simply for not waring a seatbelt."
Explanation:
In the passage is very clear that in the new law motorist can be now pulled over and ticketed for not wearing seatbelts (later in the passage it implies that's the reason why lawyers and citizens' gorups are protesting), which implies that before the state legislature passed the law this was not a reason to be pulled over even though this is not stated in the passage, the entire text circles around the novelty of pulling over motorist for not wearing seatbelt, therefore the best option is A especially because that is the main idea of the text.
They converse about each other's personalities, about treating people directly and on equal terms. It seems to her that Rochester sometimes speaks as if he were reading her mind.
Because people were
back then and they did not like laws very much hope dis helped :)
