PrepTest 145

[lcid:3678] Prep Test 145 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-6  .        The Universal Declaration of Human Rights  . (UDHR), approved by the United Nations General  . Assembly Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • History of UDHR (first treaty on human rights, some wanted to create an obligation to act)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparisons, according to the author:
      • Unlike other international treaties, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was expressly affirmed and created a standard for human rights (first and second sentences)
      • Some small countries and NGOs wanted the language of UDHR to go further and create an obligation to promote human rights, but the version of UDHR that passed didn't feature such an obligation (third through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "lobbied vigorously" (fourth sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Process and content of UDHR (long drafting/debate process, expressed principles of freedom/equality and fundamental rights)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Examples of fundamental rights asserted in UDHR, according to the author:
      • The right to work, the right to rest and leisure, and the right to education (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "elaborate" (second sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on what UDHR gets wrong (nonbinding) and right (led to binding conventions and set standards/aspirations)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The biggest weakness of the UDHR is that it's a nonbinding legal document (first and second sentences)
      • But the UDHR is a progressive document that has created (belatedly) legally binding human rights and sent a good message (last sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • The UDHR has caused the creation of legally binding human rights agreements (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "in many ways a progressive document" (first sentence); "weaknesses" (first sentence); "most regrettable" (first sentence); "purely programmatic nature" (second sentence); "has led, even if belatedly" (last sentence); "clearly deserves recognition" (last sentence)

Main Point: Despite its nonbinding legal status and late adoption, the UDHR is a good first step in promoting and starting to set a legal framework for international human rights laws.

Meta-Structure?

Importance of [Subject]: This passage best fits the Importance of [Subject] Meta-Structure. In such a passage, the author describes why a particular person, artistic work, law or legal accomplishment, or scientific breakthrough was historically significant or meaningful. The word "[Subject]" is just a placeholder for whatever specific topic the passage is about. In this case, the passage is about an international treaty, so we can think of this as an Importance of Treaty passage.

In an Importance of [Subject] passage, the main point is generally the author's opinions on why the subject was important. The author summarizes their opinions on the UDHR treaty in the last paragraph, so we'll use that to construct our anticipated main point.

Last Thoughts?

Note how the last paragraph presents the strengths and weaknesses of the UDHR, yet our anticipated main point makes it seem as if the author has a positive view of it. That's because of how the last paragraph is phrased, with the author pointing out a flaw but then pivoting ("Nevertheless") to the positive. In pivoting away from the negative to the positive, we should view the author's opinion as leaning more towards the latter while still believing the former.

Question prompt

Suppose that a group Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Review the main point and any relevant parts of the passage and notes, if necessary, to anticipate what might happen in the scenario described

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to infer, from a few details in the passage, what must be true in a novel situation, we can start by quickly finding and reviewing those details. Once we review that part of the passage, we can anticipate what might happen in the hypothetical situation described. We should consider how the hypothetical situation applies to what we reviewed and whether it might follow a similar or distinct pattern to that described in the passage.In this case, we're asked what the delegates and representatives mentioned halfway through the first paragraph would advocate if a UN member state committed human rights abuses against political dissidents. What did those delegates and representatives believe? They felt like Article 1 of the UN Charter didn't go far enough, and "[t]his group" proposed that the UN strengthen its provisions to require member states "to take separate and joint action" and cooperate with the UN to promote human rights (P1, S3-S4).So, let's take that view and apply it to the case of a journalist finding evidence of human rights abuses by a UN member state. In that case, the delegates and representatives in question would think that the state had a requirement to take separate action — do something themselves to address this issue — while also taking joint action — cooperating with the UN and other countries. Let's find an answer reflecting that.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The UN General Assembly Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this say that the delegates and representatives would think that the state had a requirement to do something themselves to address the abuses while also cooperating with the UN and other countries?

    This gets very close to that anticipation! This answer establishes that the UN would get involved to investigate claims of human rights abuses, and the member country would be required to cooperate with the UN and take separate action to fix the problem. This answer aligns with the proposal of the group of delegates/representatives, so this is the correct answer.

    Since it's not an exact match for our anticipation, we should probably review the remaining answer choices before selecting it. But in the meantime, we can mark (A) as a strong contender and take a critical eye toward the remaining options.

  2. B
    The UN General Assembly Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that the delegates and representatives would think that the state had a requirement to do something themselves to address the abuses while also cooperating with the UN and other countries?

    No. Requiring unanimous acceptance hardly sounds like the views of a group who believes the UN Charter doesn't do enough to protect human rights, and this doesn't reflect the "separate" action their proposal calls for on the part of the countries who are engaged in these human rights violations.

  3. C
    The UN issues a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say that the delegates and representatives would think that the state had a requirement to do something themselves to address the abuses while also cooperating with the UN and other countries?

    Nope. There's no separate action being taken by the member nation in question, and a censure vote hardly sounds like a strong reaction to human rights violations. Since this group called for separate action and a strengthening of human rights protections, this answer is incorrect.

  4. D
    The situation is regarded Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say that the delegates and representatives would think that the state had a requirement to do something themselves to address the abuses while also cooperating with the UN and other countries?

    Nope. This group called for joint action and cooperation with the UN, so the UN punting on the violations is not aligned with this group's views.

  5. E
    The situation is investigated Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say that the delegates and representatives would think that the state had a requirement to do something themselves to address the abuses while also cooperating with the UN and other countries?

    No. The group in question called for the UN to strengthen its provisions and do more to require member nations to fight human rights abuses in their borders, so punting to NGOs and the media doesn't line up with their proposal.

What this tests

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion