62.
The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: Since Student B is blind, he would not be able to come to school if he cannot bring his guide dog C into School A; since this rule does not intend to bar blind students from attending school, Student B may bring guide dog C into school.
According to the principle given, the context rule of interpretation requires that words must normally be interpreted in the context of their use. This means that the meaning and scope of the words of a rule or a statute may vary depending on the situation and purpose for which they are applied. The context rule aims to avoid absurdity, inconsistency, or injustice that may result from a literal or rigid application of the words.
In this case, the rule of School A is that students' pet dogs are not permitted to enter the school's premises. Student B, who is blind, brings his guide dog C into School A. The guide dog C is a specially trained dog that assists Student B in navigating and performing daily activities. The guide dog C is essential for Student B's mobility and independence. If Student B cannot bring his guide dog C into School A, he would not be able to come to school or participate in the educational activities. This would violate his right to education and equality.
The context rule of interpretation suggests that the rule of School A should not be applied literally or rigidly to Student B's case. The rule of School A does not intend to bar blind students from attending school or to discriminate against them on the basis of their disability. The rule of School A only intends to prevent nuisance, disturbance, or harm that may be caused by ordinary pet dogs in the school's premises. The guide dog C is not an ordinary pet dog, but a service animal that performs a vital function for Student B. Therefore, the rule of School A should be interpreted in a way that allows Student B to bring his guide dog C into school, as an exception to the general prohibition.
Option B is incorrect because it applies the rule of School A literally and rigidly, without considering the context and purpose of its use. It ignores the fact that the guide dog C is not an ordinary pet dog, but a service animal that assists Student B in his education and daily life. It also ignores the fact that barring Student B from bringing his guide dog C into school would amount to denying him his right to education and equality.
Option C is incorrect because it invalidates the rule of School A entirely, without considering its rationale and scope. It assumes that the rule of School A does not make any sense in any context, which is not true. The rule of School A may make sense in some contexts, such as preventing ordinary pet dogs from entering the school's premises and causing nuisance, disturbance, or harm. The context rule of interpretation does not require invalidating a rule or a statute, but only modifying or departing from its literal meaning when it leads to absurdity, inconsistency, or injustice.
Option D is incorrect because it applies the context rule of interpretation incorrectly and inconsistently. It recognizes that Student B is blind and would not be able to come to school if he cannot bring his guide dog C into School A, but it still asks him to avoid bringing his guide dog C into school as it could hurt other students. This option contradicts itself and does not explain how or why the guide dog C could hurt other students. It also violates Student B's right to education and equality.
Option E is incorrect because it delegates the application of the context rule of interpretation to the discretion of the school authorities, without providing any guidance or criteria for their decision. This option creates uncertainty and inconsistency in the interpretation and enforcement of the rule of School A. It also exposes Student B to the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by the school authorities.