The source says that marine-insurance clauses are mentioned, but their text is unreadable. Which conclusion is best supported?

### Why this is right The supplied passage says that marine insurance clauses are mentioned, while also stating that the text is largely illegible. The cautious conclusion is that the topic appears, but its specific clause names and effects cannot be recovered reliably. ### The concept An insurance **clause** is a provision in a policy that states or modifies some part of the arrangement. Knowing that a document mentions clauses does not reveal which clauses it discusses or what they do. When source text is corrupted, a reader should separate visible evidence from assumptions. Here, marine insurance and clauses are recognizable, but no clause wording, coverage rule, exclusion, or list can be confirmed. ### The other options - **B. The document identifies one clause as covering every marine loss.** No such clause or promise is readable; the statement invents a coverage rule. - **C. The document establishes that all marine cargo losses are excluded.** No exclusion is readable, and the claim goes beyond the evidence. - **D. The document gives a complete list of clause conditions.** The passage is described as largely illegible, so a complete list cannot be established. ### Terms - **Clause**: A provision in a policy that states or changes a term of the insurance arrangement. - **Marine insurance**: An insurance topic named in the source; its detailed types and clauses cannot be reconstructed reliably. ### Watch out A heading that mentions a clause does not reveal its wording or legal effect. ### Remember When the source is unreadable, report what it names and avoid supplying missing policy terms.