PrepTest 101

[lcid:3501] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

After the Second World Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Stimulus Summary

Structure - 11-member Security Council, with the 5 major powers having sole veto power
Rationale - The 5 major powers would enforce peace, and a nation shouldn’t have to enforce a decision they disliked

Answer Anticipation

First, let’s talk about the question stem. This stimulus asks us for an assumption that the argument makes, but it doesn’t refer to it as either sufficient or necessary. When this is the case, the correct answer has always been a necessary premise, so we should treat this as a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question. (The answers also tend to serve as sufficient premises, but that’s not always the case.)
Next, we should make sure we understand the scope of the question. There’s a lot of history in the stimulus, but we’re tasked with finding an assumption made in the reasoning behind the structure of the Security Council. As such, we framed our summary just around that aspect.
With that outlined, it’s time to dig in. The key element of the structure that is supported is the 5 major powers who had veto power. The rationale behind giving them veto power was that they’d need to enforce things, and nations shouldn’t be forced to assume a burden in doing something they disagreed with.
However, there’s a lot of strong language in the stimulus. First, it’s noted that the five major powers would “permanently” be the only countries to have veto power. The rationale is that no nation should have to enforce something with which they disagree. That broad statement creates problems - since there may be countries that become major powers, and they wouldn’t be a member of the Security Council. Thus, those new powers may need to enforce decisions with which they disagree. That’s a problem for the rationale, so let’s look for an answer eliminating that possibility (e.g., No nations will become major powers.)
(Note that it’s not a problem if one of the major powers stops being a major power. The rationale for the structure doesn’t raise problems for a nation that doesn’t assume a burden maintaining veto power, so that’s a potential trap answer.)

Answer choices

  1. A
    it does not make Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    The rationale doesn’t involve a discussion of democracy or nations that are democratic at all, so this answer is out of scope.

  2. B
    no nation that was Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    This answer addresses the gap in the rationale that we identified. If a nation that wasn’t a major power at the end of WW2 becomes one, then they’d assume the burden of enforcing UN decisions. However, they wouldn’t have veto power, since the Security Council was locked in at the end of WW2. As such, that new major power could end up assuming the burden of enforcing a decision it found repugnant but lacked the ability to veto. This answer rules that possibility out, serving as a necessary premise/assumption for the argument.

  3. C
    nations would not eventually Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The major powers forming blocs with smaller powers is out of scope of the argument, since those major powers would maintain veto power and, in fact, could represent the interests of the smaller powers. No one, in this case, is assuming a burden to enforce decisions that they abhor.

  4. D
    minor powers would not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Similar to (C), more countries gaining protection from the veto power doesn’t undermine the rationale. That rationale was about forcing countries to assume a burden to do something they abhor; more countries being able to prevent actions that they’d abhor doesn’t run afoul of that reasoning.

  5. E
    decisions reached by a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The rationale deals with decisions that major powers abhor - that doesn’t necessarily line up or against decisions that are biased for them. A country could abhor a decision that helps them or love a decision that hurts them!

What this tests

Discussion

  • Please Explain 1 reply

    Started by ElizabethGlassmann

View all discussions Start a discussion