If any one steals the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death. Is this law fair, too lenient, or too harsh? Why?

It depends on the situation. If the buyer of the property that was stolen knew it was stolen then the law should be enforced, but if the buyer had no clue then it's a different story. See, when the buyer has knowledge of the criminal activity he should go straight to the law to have the situation taken care of and have the thief prosecuted. Now if the buyer had no clue about the criminal activities behind the property he has bought and later gets caught with it should be interrogated and used to the advantage of the law to catch the real theif so he/she can be prosecuted lawfully.

d. i assume the underlined word is "role." reformat if it isn't.

explanation:

role is closest to part because when replacing words, "playing a vital decision," "playing a vital activity," and "playing a vital dollar" don't make logical sense. the only meaningful choice is "playing a vital part."

this fits one of merriam-webster's definitions of role: "a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process."

answer; silence;