PrepTest 154

Incorrect. (Lines 28-31; Lines 55-59) The passage ties empirical environmental studies to whether pollution is crossing borders, and there's no mention of how Scholars feel about international treaties, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. (Lines 47-50; Lines 56-59) Paragraph 4 is all about Scholars focusing on the law while the Author focuses on international agreements, so this answer highlights a topic on which they disagree.

Incorrect. (Lines 21-24) This answer is tempting! It definitely deals with the criterion by which a principle would be considered a norm. However, it's too limited in talking about ""a particular nation"" and whether it's a customary law ""for the nation in question""—if almost every nation acts in accordance with a principle, while it's unclear whether one nation does, that principle would almost certainly be considered a customary international law.

Correct. Question Type:
Point of Agreement

Strategy Overview:
Focus on the more limited viewpoint, and find areas where the more expansive one agrees with it

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
When dealing with Point of Agreement (or Point at Issue) questions in LR, one strategy we employ is to work through the more limited/shorter argument and compare each point to the longer one to see what both have an opinion on. We can do the same here!

The Author is present throughout this passage, while the Scholars crop up here and again. We should, therefore, hit the points that are attributed to the Scholars, comparing each to what the Author says to find a point they agree on.

Paragraph 1 sees the Scholars focusing on clarifying norms of customary international law, and they hold two principles to be such norms. This actually makes up a lot of the debate in the passage, and we know that the Author eventually says that these principles make up an ""ideological system"" rather than norms, so this is a point of disagreement.

In Paragraph 2, the Author notes that in determining whether something is a norm, Scholars ""generally accept an established criterion"" (Lines 20-21)—if countries largely follow the principles as rules, then they're rules. And the Author goes on to argue that the principles here aren't generally followed, thus concluding that they're not norms. As such, the two groups agree on this criterion—they just disagree on whether it applies to the environmental principles as presented.

In Paragraph 3, the debate over whether these principles are norms continues, and we've already dealt with overlap there, so we can move on. And in Paragraph 4, the Author says the Scholars are ""misdirecting their efforts"" (Line 50), so there's more disagreement.

So after working through all of the views attributed to the Scholars, we have one point of agreement with the Author—that if nations generally don't follow a principle in their actions, then that principle isn't a norm of customary international law.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 21-24; Lines 41-43) The Scholars ""generally accept"" this as an established criterion for determining whether a principle is a norm. And the Author applies that criterion when she determines that the principles in question aren't norms (""Hence these . . . "", Lines 41-43). As such, both groups accept the criterion as the relevant rule here, making it the correct answer—even if they disagree on whether the principles in question meet the criterion!

Key Takeaway:
Working with the more ""limited"" viewpoint can be a solid way to anticipate the answer to a Point at Issue or Point of Agreement question in RC. Usually, that means considering the specified viewpoint and comparing what they say to what the Author says.

Incorrect. (Lines 1-7) The passage starts by highlighting that Scholars focus on these norms in thinking about the issues, so they wouldn't agree with this answer, and thus it can't be something the two viewpoints agree on.