Analogy — Specific enactment to legal category:\nStatute : Law :: ? : ?\n\nPick the pair where the first is a specific type under the second, mirroring statute being a kind of law.

Introduction / Context:
Legal analogies often capture taxonomy: a “statute” is a type of “law” (the broader legal category). We must preserve “specific legal unit → its broader class.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statute is a formal written law.
• Within documents, a “proviso” is a kind of clause that states a condition or exception.
• Other options mix organizational parts that do not preserve the same taxonomic relationship.

Concept / Approach:
The pattern is “X is a kind of Y.” Hence, “Proviso : Clause” fits best because a proviso is a particular subtype of clause, just as a statute is a particular form of law.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Legal drafting manuals define “proviso” as a clause that qualifies an earlier statement—clearly a subset of “clause”.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Chapter : Exercise — Not a subtype; different document entities.
• University : School — Peer institutions or hierarchy reversal; not subtype.
• Section : Illustration — An illustration explains a section; not a superordinate category.
• None of these — incorrect since a valid subtype pair exists.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing explanatory/supporting parts (illustrations) with superordinate categories.

Final Answer:
Proviso : Clause