PrepTest 109

Incorrect. This answer doesn't explain why the Parliament—which supports the UN's commitment—would condemn the PM for committing the troops herself.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
UNSC action — Authorized military intervention by a coalition of forces
One Nation's PM — Promised to commit military personnel to that force
One Nation's Parliament — Condemned the PM despite supporting the UNSC resolution.

Answer Anticipation:
As with all Paradox questions we should start by clearly defining the paradox. Since there are three actors here—the UNSC the PM and the Parliament—we need to figure out whose actions are paradoxical!

And that would be the Parliament's. They condemned the PM for committing troops to a military intervention authorized by the UN. One might expect based on this that they opposed the military action. However it's established that they actually support it. This is the paradox that we need to resolve.

So why might the Parliament condemn the PM for committing to something that they support? There could be any number of reasons! Maybe the way that she committed was inappropriate or she committed to a much higher level than the Parliament thinks is appropriate. Maybe the PM isn't supposed to be in charge of the military leaving those matters to the Parliament. As such we should look for an answer that focuses on the action of the PM in committing the troops not the intervention itself to explain the Parliament's condemnation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer explains why the Parliament would condemn the PM's actions while supporting the action that she committed them to. If the country's constitution puts the power to promise troops in the Parliament's hands not the PM's then her committing the troops without allowing the Parliament to would be wholly inappropriate and thus deserving of condemnation.

Key Takeaway:
Many harder Paradox questions will present a lot of information that you need to cut through in order to find the paradox. Always make sure you start off with a clear idea of the paradox you're trying to resolve—otherwise there's a chance you'll pick an answer related to one of the extraneous details.

Incorrect. The Parliament supports the action, so that they have to pay for it shouldn't be a reason to condemn the PM for committing the troops.

Incorrect. First, the Parliament does support the action, and, if anything, the condemnation of the PM might convince the public that they don't, which it doesn't seem like they would want. Second, there's no indication that a lack of public support for the action would play into Parliament deciding to censure the PM since they support the action—they may be willing to risk public backlash to stand up for something they believe is right!

Incorrect. Two issues here. First, there's no indication how the public feels about the UN's decision, or of getting their country involved in it. Second, there's no indication that the Parliament would cave to public pressure and condemn the PM for supporting something that they, too, support just because the public's against it.