Read this excerpt from a news article and then answer the question that follows:

Don't look to the Supreme Court for purple prose

WASHINGTON (AP) (99071391728)

The Supreme Court justices are nine smart men and women. But when it comes to writing, there's not a Shakespeare, Hemingway or even John Grisham among them.

``Trying to pick between the justices in majority opinion writing is rather like asking me whether I prefer Miracle Whip or mayonnaise,'' says Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh. ``You will rarely see what I regard as good writing in Supreme Court opinions.''

[…]

Most of the justices' opinions were no threat to the late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and other great opinion writers of the past.

Consider this gem, also by Scalia, in a decision in January involving the Federal Communications Commission's regulation of local telephone business:

``Respondents argue that avoiding this pari passu expansion of commission jurisdiction with expansion of the substantive scope of the act was the reason the `nothing shall be construed' provision was framed in the alternative: `nothing in this act shall be construed to apply or to give the commission jurisdiction' (emphasis added) with respect to the forbidden subjects.''

Got that?

What is the explicit message in this article?

-The Supreme Court Justices may be intelligent, but that does not necessarily make them good writers.
-We can tell the Supreme Court Justices are intelligent because they are extremely talented writers.
-We can tell the Supreme Court Justices are not intelligent because they are not talented writers.
-The Supreme Court Justices may be intelligent, but that does not necessarily make them bad writers.