Q11

[jewels0602]

I got this one wrong because I thought the question stem was asking about regulations governing trade AS IT IS now.. meaning, regulations in place right now that straight up prohibit trade, so I chose D. (because the author says that the current regulations aren't enforced, so if there is severe punishment, that can be a form of enforcement, and I got the feeling the author wants SOME kind of enforcement).

I can see why the answer is C, but I was wondering how we are to decipher what regulations the question is asking about, I felt the wording made it seem like the regulations were already in place... is the phrase "regulations governing..." vs. "regulations prohibiting..."?

Thanks!!

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, jewels0602!

It seems like you fell into the oh-so-common trap of choosing an answer based on 'the feeling' you got from the passage, rather than from specific and direct evidence! Remember the RC mantra: line references, or it didn't happen!!

Let's follow your thought path here - what if the question were talking about the currently existing trade regulations in Mali? If that were the case, the answer choice we would need would be describing the current state of existing regulations. (D) doesn't do that! We know that the current regulations aren't enforced, and that's not at all what (D) says. The author never says that those current regulations can, should, or must be enforced, and he certainly never says anything at all about strict punishments.

If we were looking for an answer choice for a question about the current regulations, we'd need something that was phrased "such regulations ARE...." The only answer choice that might arguably be about the current status would be (E) - but the idea of regulations being simple/easy to understand never comes up in the passage at all. All four of the other answer choices talk about what regulations "must be" or "can be" - this sounds a lot more like we're focused on what the author thinks these regulations ought to be, rather than what they currently are. This should be a bright signal that the LSAT is asking about the author's ideal regulations.

There's another cool clue: the question didn't about about regulations "in Mali", but rather "in countries like Mali" - the author never describes what a bunch of countries like Mali are doing, just Mali itself. However, when the author switches into the hypothetical thinking in the final paragraph, that could just as easily be applied to "countries like Mali" as to Mali itself!

Now that we know where we should be looking, we can swoop right down to the bottom of paragraph 4 - the author acknowledges that "[s]ome people would still have avoided the rules," (i.e., "not all people [would] strictly comply with them"), and yet suggests this might still have been better than what happened with the current regs (i.e., "can be beneficial"). That matches (C) perfectly!

Let's take a look at each wrong answer choice:

(A) Neither the current regs, nor the author's hypothetical regs, would need to be approved by archeologists.
(B) While the current Mali regs might have the goal of maximizing antiquities retention, the author does not think regs must do this - in fact, he thinks they should not!
(D) As noted above, the current regs are unenforced (no strict punishments). While it's possible the author might approve of strict punishments, he never tells us this, and the hypothetical regs never touch on punishments for violations either.
(E) How simple a regulation is never comes up, and no connection is drawn between simplicity and effectiveness.

Remember the RC mantra: line references, or it didn't happen!