PrepTest 154
[lcid:3714] Prep Test 154 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3
Reading comp
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
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.
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 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 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 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
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: A
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
AIn the final paragraph, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A matches the stem
Correct. Question Type:
Argument Structure
Strategy Overview:
Review our notes on the role of the first and last paragraphs and define their relationship
Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
After reading each paragraph, you should be taking a few seconds to think about its role in the overall passage. That will help you understand the passage, find the main point, and answer questions such as this one!
Looking at our notes, we can see that Paragraph 1 introduced two principles that some argue are a part of customary international law. Paragraph 4 then recommended that those principles serve as the basis for international agreements rather than the current focus on using them for court cases. Let's find an answer reflecting that relationship.
Answer Explanation:
(Lines 8-10; Lines 47-50; Lines 56-59) In Paragraph 1, the Author notes that scholars approach two environmental principles as norms that count as a part of customary international law. She opposes this view in Paragraph 4, noting that such a focus is ""misdirect[ed]."" She proposes an alternative approach—affirming these principles as a part of negotiations—and then argues for that approach by citing the shift away from court decisions and to international agreements as the ""principal means"" of resolving environmental issues. This answer correctly describes the paragraphs in question and how they relate to each other, so this is the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
Note that a lot of these answers play off of the nuance in the passage—the difference between accepting the environmental principles and their importance in international environmental issues, and accepting how they're used. The Author accepts the principles while recommending they be used in a different manner. Such nuance usually ends up being reflected in the answers! -
BIn the final paragraph, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 56-59) The Author recommends affirming core environmental principles—which would include the two mentioned—as a part of international agreements. She doesn't throw out the noted principles—she just wants to use them in a new way. -
CIn the final paragraph, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 47-50) The Author believes that the practice of treating the environmental principles as norms for customary international law that can be applied by a court is misguided (""misdirecting their efforts""), so she doesn't accept the original practice. -
DIn the final paragraph, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 47-50; Lines 56-59) The Author recommends moving away from approaching the principles as laws and towards using them as a shared basis for international agreements. As such, this answer that says the Author wants a focus on the legal status of the two principles is wrong—she doesn't believe they are norms for customary international law, but in arguing that the courts shouldn't be a focus, it actually doesn't matter what their status is. -
EIn the final paragraph, Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Incorrect. (Lines 47-50) The Author puts forward her own proposal, saying that the scholars are ""misdirecting"" their efforts.