LSAT 101 – Section 2 – Question 17

LSAT 101 - Section 2 - Question 17

December 1997

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:49

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT101 S2 Q17
+LR
Necessary assumption +NA
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
1%
162
B
77%
169
C
4%
161
D
8%
162
E
9%
162
145
155
165
 +Harder 150.088 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

After the Second World War, the charter of the newly formed United Nations established an eleven-member Security Council and charged it with taking collective action in response to threats to world peace. The charter further provided that the five nations that were then the major powers would permanently have sole authority to cast vetoes. The reason given for this arrangement was that the burden of maintaining world peace would rest on the world’s major powers, and no nation should be required to assume the burden of enforcing a decision it found repugnant.

Summary
The Security Council’s structure gives permanent veto power to only those nations that were major powers at the end of World War II. The reason is that major powers are the ones responsible for keeping world peace, and they shouldn’t be made to enforce decisions that they strongly disagree with.

Notable Assumptions
The support says why any major power should have veto powers. But there’s no explanation for why only the major powers at the end of World War II should have those veto powers, or why they should have them permanently. By the argument’s premises, any new major powers should also be given veto powers, and if one of the original five ceased to be a major power, there would be no more reason for it to have veto powers.

The reasoning must assume both that no new major powers will arise and that none of the original five will cease to be a major power.

A
it does not make sense to provide for democracy among nations when nations themselves are not all democracies
We don’t know whether the members of the Security Council are all democracies, or whether the Security Council’s veto structure fails to “provide for democracy.” Since the argument doesn’t involve either of these considerations, it can’t depend on any assumptions about them.
B
no nation that was not among the major powers at the end of the Second World War would become a major power
In other words, no other nations would become major powers. If negated—if other nations were to become major powers—the premises would support giving those other nations veto powers too. So the premises support restricting veto powers to the original five only if (B) is assumed.
C
nations would not eventually gravitate into large geographical blocs, each containing minor powers as well as at least one major power
Allegiances have no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. Whether they form blocs is irrelevant.
D
minor powers would not ally themselves with major powers to gain the protection of the veto exercised by major powers
Allegiances have no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. Whether those vetoes protect allies is irrelevant.
E
decisions reached by a majority of nations in response to threats to world peace would be biased in favor of one or more major powers
Whether decisions are biased has no effect on the reasoning. The argument is that the five major powers should have permanent, sole veto power so that as peacekeepers, they can say “no” to decisions they strongly disagree with. The content or bias of any decision is irrelevant.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 101 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply