Which of the following denotes an advantage of a 'de novo' review?

A 'de novo' review refers to a new or fresh examination of a case, as if it had not been previously heard. This approach is particularly advantageous because it ensures a comprehensive review of the evidence and the facts of the case without being influenced by the conclusions or biases from earlier hearings. By starting from scratch, the reviewing authority can evaluate the entire matter based solely on the evidence presented, leading to potential conclusions that are free from any preconceived notions or previous interpretations that may have been flawed or biased.

In contrast, the other options either suggest limitations or characteristics that do not inherently align with the principle of a 'de novo' review. While allowing a sampling of evidence may be beneficial in some contexts, 'de novo' reviews are characterized by a thorough re-evaluation rather than reliance on past evidence. Restricting the scope of appeal runs counter to the inclusive nature of 'de novo' assessments, which aim to ensure all relevant evidence is considered. Promoting quick resolutions can be a goal in various legal processes, but 'de novo' reviews often require a careful and deliberate approach to ensure fairness and accuracy, which may take more time rather than being expedited.