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
  • 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

The author's mention of 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
    an example of the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 8-9) The Author doesn't argue that these debates focus too little on environmental issues—in fact, the whole debate is over how best to address international environmental issues!
  2. B
    a means of suggesting Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 47-50) The Author believes that attempting to enforce certain principles as international laws is a misdirection of focus since these principles don't amount to laws, so this answer misses her argument.
  3. C
    evidence offered by the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 56-60) The Author recommends refocusing away from courts and on treaties and negotiations/agreements to address environmental issues.
  4. D
    an acknowledgment that, in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 24-28) This is a tricky answer. The Author does disagree with the Scholars over whether the principles count as norms, and she does share their concern for the environment. However, the statement in question isn't meant to highlight that they have a point of agreement—it highlights a situation that backs up her disagreement with them over whether the principles count as norms.
  5. E
    support for the author's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Argument Structure

    Strategy Overview:
    Head back to the statement in question and define its role in the context of the paragraph and the passage as a whole

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    The stem tells us that we're looking at something from the second paragraph. Looking at our notes, we can see that the paragraph is about a question—do the principles brought up in the first paragraph amount to norms of customary international law? To answer that, it establishes a criterion—they must be reflected in the actions of countries.

    With that noted, we should now dive into the statement in question. It brings up a situation where harmful pollutants cross international borders and that countries rarely do anything to stop it.

    How does that relate to the principles/criterion? Well, one of the principes is that countries shouldn't do anything that escapes their borders and hurts other countries. This statement brings up examples of countries doing just that. So, in other words, countries regularly violate this principle. And thus, according to the criterion, it isn't a norm.

    Now, let's define it in relation to the Author's overall point. In this passage, the Author intends to show that these principles aren't norms of law and thus Scholars should focus on using them as the basis for international agreements rather than court cases. In bringing up examples showing that countries don't follow a certain principle and thus can't be norms of customary international law, this statement supports that conclusion.

    So the statement in question supports the Author's overall point by showing that the principles in question don't meet the criterion for being a part of customary international law—let's find an answer stating that.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 24-28) Immediately before the statement in question, the Author pivots from the view of the Scholars to show that many of the ""norms"" they treat as customary law (including the principles in question) don't reflect the criterion they established, and thus they can't be considered norms. This answer describes that role, so this is the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    Always define the role of a statement in question in the context of both the paragraph it's included in and the passage as a whole. That'll make it a lot more likely that you'll anticipate all the major parts of the correct answer.

What this tests

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion