Reading comp PrepTest 154 · Section 3 · Question 21

Passage

Questions 21-27  .       In the absence of international statutes prohibiting  . nations from causing each other environmental damage,  . scholars Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • Two principles that make up a norm are introduced
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Absence of law, international environmental law relies on "customary law", i.e., norms
    • Principle 1 - Transboundary harm - Don't do anything that leaves your borders
    • Principle 2 - Precautionary principle - Don't put other nations at significant risk of harm
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • A question is implied
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Question - Do these principles amount to norms for court cases?
    • Normal rule - They do only if countries actually practice them instead of just saying them (Say vs. Do)
    • Current situation - Countries break the principles
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • More of the Say vs. Do situation is discussed
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Countries - Repeat principles, criticize others based on them, break them
    • Scholars - Evaluate countries based on what they say
    • Author - These "norms" aren't really norms - they're an "ideological system"
Paragraph 4
  • Paragraph note
    • Implications of the Author's conclusion; Author makes a recommendation
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Focusing on norms as law/courts is misguided
    • Focus instead on treaties/negotiations - use principle to make good agreements
Main Point:
Rather than focusing on environmental principles as norms to guide court cases, scholars interested in making progress on the environment should focus on them as a means of directing treaties and agreements.

Key Lines:
Lines 8-9 - The principles being debated are introduced
Lines 21-24 - The criterion for determining whether a principle is a norm is established
Lines 27-28 - The Author shows the principles in question don't meet that criterion
Line 43-46 - The Author classifies the principles
Lines 54-59 - The Author makes a recommendation

Meta-Structure:

Question/Answer - The Author asks whether the principles amount to actual norms for international law, and she determines they don't (Paragraphs 2 and 3).

Criterion/Classification - The Author establishes the criterion for classifying something as a norm, and she determines that the principles in question aren't norms but rather ideological systems (Line 44).

Problem/Solution - The Author presents international environmental problems to be addressed, and she recommends that those focused on these problems approach them by using principles to guide international agreements.

Last Thoughts:
There's an interesting relationship between what scholars are currently doing and what the Author recommends that they do. Currently, the scholars are focusing on two environmental principles as a means of solving international environmental issues. That's what the Author recommends! However, the scholars currently are appealing to these principles as a basis for international law that can be applied by courts, while the Author says that these principles should instead be used as the basis for international agreements.

So, in short, the Author agrees with the principles that the scholars are using, but she disagrees on how they're using them. There's not a complete disconnect between the two viewpoints, so that might come up in the answers.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    Preventing transboundary harm is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Line 13) This answer focuses on one of the two principles, so it's too limited to be the main point. Additionally, there's no discussion of the economic implications of transboundary harm.
  2. B
    International law is an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 5-7; Lines 21-23; Line 44) This answer is a mish-mash of fancy words the Author uses throughout the passage. However, she distinguishes formal international law from norms, and she describes the environmental principles as an ideological system rather than a norm/customary international law. This answer is trying to get you to pick it by throwing the complex language from the stimulus at you, but it does so in a way that doesn't line up with the passage. Additionally, it's completely missing the recommendation made by the Author, and any such recommendation would be key to the main point.
  3. C
    Many scholars believe that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 47-50; Lines 54-56) First, the Author is the one who is arguing for a treaty-based approach to environmental issues—not the scholars. Second, the scholars are currently focused on using unwritten norms in international courts, not passing laws.
  4. D
    The debate regarding which Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. The passage isn't concerned with figuring out who violated laws—it's concerned with whether using principles as the basis for court cases will be successful.
  5. E
    Solutions to international environmental Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Main Point

    Strategy Overview:
    Reiterate the main point that we came up with after reading through the passage

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    In the first paragraph, the Author introduces two environmental principles (Line 8). She then explores the debate over whether these two principles make up norms that can be applied in international courts (Line 17-23) before deciding that they don't (41-46). However, she recommends a way to use them to solve environmental problems (Lines 54-59)—have them serve as the basis for international agreements rather than court cases.

    So the Author's main point:
    Rather than focusing on environmental principles as norms to guide court cases, scholars interested in making progress on the environment should focus on them as a means of directing treaties and agreements.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 17-23; Lines 41-46; Lines 54-59) The Author shows that the principles noted aren't norms in customary international law that can be enforced in international courts, and that scholars should focus on using them as the basis for international agreements instead. This answer captures all elements of the Author's opinion, so it's the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    This passage/question is yet another example of the overlap between RC and LR. In LR, a recommendation in an argument would almost always be considered to be the main point. Here, the Author makes a recommendation as to how a certain problem should be approached, noting that it's better than the current approach, and that comparison/recommendation is reflected in the correct answer to this main point question.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 2%
  2. B 16%
  3. C 9%
  4. D 11%
  5. E Credited 63%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion