Final answer:
The scope for generously interpreting a right diminishes when there is a conflict of rights, as the courts must balance these to avoid one right infringing on another. Additionally, consideration for the common good and societal needs can lead to a narrower scope of individual rights in certain contexts, like the affirmation of the death penalty. Option B is correct.
Step-by-step explanation:
The scope for interpreting a right generously diminishes most notably when there is a conflict of rights. In situations where rights are at odds, courts must carefully balance these conflicting interests, ensuring that no one right unduly tramples on another. This often necessitates a narrower interpretation to maintain a fair and equitable society. For example, while the right to free speech is significant, it may be limited when it infringes upon another individual's right to not be defamed.
Moreover, ensuring the common good and the government's ability to function and protect its citizens can also demand a less generous interpretation of individual rights, as seen in the Supreme Court's approach to the death penalty as a necessary evil for the greater safety of society.
In addition, although not specifically mentioned in the question, the Bill of Rights and its interpretation via selective incorporation also plays a crucial role in how rights are understood and applied at the state level. This process ensures fundamental liberties are protected across states, even if state laws or constitutions do not explicitly do so. However, the interpretation of these rights is continually evolving with landmark court cases setting new precedents, which can either expand or diminish the scope of rights guaranteed to individuals.