Answer:
C. "As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was closely akin to 'pure speech' which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment.
Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536,555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)."
Step-by-step explanation:
A precedent can be explained as an event which took place in the past and is used as a guide for possible future occurrences.
Therefore, the excerpt from Tinker vs Des Moines that shows how precedent helps support an argument is option C.
This is because a previous case was brought up to show how its precedent.