Which pair correctly names two common statutory interpretation canons and illustrates their use?

Which pair correctly names two common statutory interpretation canons and illustrates their use?

• A. Plain Meaning Rule and Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
• B. Noscitur a Sociis and Ejusdem Generis.
• C. Reductio ad Absurdum and Rule of Lenity.
• D. Literal Rule and Golden Rule.

Answer: (A)

The question tests how courts read statutes by using established rules of construction. The best pair brings together a straight, text-first approach with a rule about how lists shape meaning. The Plain Meaning Rule directs interpreters to give the ordinary, literal meaning to the words of the statute unless something in the text makes that impossible. It’s the starting point for understanding what the law says on its face. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius expresses a specific inference: when a statute enumerates particular items, things not listed are typically excluded from coverage. This helps resolve questions about scope by tying inclusion to explicit wording. Together, they illustrate two distinct, widely used tools: one about interpreting words at face value, the other about drawing boundaries from how items are expressly listed. The other pair mixes canons that rely more on word association or context (which can be useful, but doesn’t pair a clear literal rule with an explicit exclusion rule as cleanly) or includes a principle not typically used as a standalone statutory-interpretation canon (such as a logical reductio ad absurdum or a criminal-law lenity rule).

The question tests how courts read statutes by using established rules of construction. The best pair brings together a straight, text-first approach with a rule about how lists shape meaning. The Plain Meaning Rule directs interpreters to give the ordinary, literal meaning to the words of the statute unless something in the text makes that impossible. It’s the starting point for understanding what the law says on its face. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius expresses a specific inference: when a statute enumerates particular items, things not listed are typically excluded from coverage. This helps resolve questions about scope by tying inclusion to explicit wording.

Together, they illustrate two distinct, widely used tools: one about interpreting words at face value, the other about drawing boundaries from how items are expressly listed. The other pair mixes canons that rely more on word association or context (which can be useful, but doesn’t pair a clear literal rule with an explicit exclusion rule as cleanly) or includes a principle not typically used as a standalone statutory-interpretation canon (such as a logical reductio ad absurdum or a criminal-law lenity rule).