why is D incorrect? i know nations don't have authority to control international water, but within its own territorial waters, doesn't it have the authority to control?
Thanks a lot!
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- christine.defenbaugh
-
Thanks Received: 585
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 536
- Joined: May 17th, 2013
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q2
Excellent question, Nina! You are absolutely correct that nations have the authority to control activities in their territorial waters. There are multiple answer choices that are compatible with that fact alone though, and that's where things get interesting!
Let's break down the question completely.
On this Identification question, we are going to look for explicit support in the passage to back every element of our answer up. The question itself gives us three parameters:
1) before mid-20th century
2) commercial activity in territorial waters
3) threatens all marine life in those waters
The first three paragraphs discuss the state of affairs before the mid-20th century, but only paragraph 1 spends any real time on 'territorial waters' - "within which [a nation] had the authority, but not the responsibility, to regulate all activities" (lines 11-12). (C) is this expressed nearly verbatim.
Notice that no other entity, nation or international body, is pointed out that could have authority over those territorial waters, under any circumstances. The fact that this hypothetical activity threatens all marine life in the waters does not change anything. Nothing in the passage indicates that this would alter the authority/responsibility balance with regard to territorial waters before mid-20th century.
The Unsupported/Contradicted
(A) Contradicted. The passage explicitly indicates that the nation that has the authority to control the waters does NOT have the responsibility to do so. Therefore, no censure would be appropriate.
(B) Contradicted. Again, the nation in question does not have the responsibility to protect its waters, so no other nation has the ability to demand it of them.
(D) Unsupported. This suggests that the "authority" the nation exercises over its territorial waters is limited to situations where it can contain a threat. There is nothing in the passage to suggest that threat spillover is enough to grant any other entity any authority whatsoever over a nation's territorial waters, or to impose a new obligation or responsibility onto that nation.
(E) Unsupported. There is nothing to suggest that the authority a nation exercises over its territorial waters is limited to its own citizens. Citizenship is only raised as a relevant characteristic in international waters - in territorial waters, authority is indicated to be essentially unlimited.
Note how (C), (D), and (E) all agreed that the nation would be permitted to act, but (D) and (E) go on to limit that authority to only particular circumstances. No such limitations are supported by the passage.
Please let me know if this completely answers your question!
Let's break down the question completely.
On this Identification question, we are going to look for explicit support in the passage to back every element of our answer up. The question itself gives us three parameters:
1) before mid-20th century
2) commercial activity in territorial waters
3) threatens all marine life in those waters
The first three paragraphs discuss the state of affairs before the mid-20th century, but only paragraph 1 spends any real time on 'territorial waters' - "within which [a nation] had the authority, but not the responsibility, to regulate all activities" (lines 11-12). (C) is this expressed nearly verbatim.
Notice that no other entity, nation or international body, is pointed out that could have authority over those territorial waters, under any circumstances. The fact that this hypothetical activity threatens all marine life in the waters does not change anything. Nothing in the passage indicates that this would alter the authority/responsibility balance with regard to territorial waters before mid-20th century.
The Unsupported/Contradicted
(A) Contradicted. The passage explicitly indicates that the nation that has the authority to control the waters does NOT have the responsibility to do so. Therefore, no censure would be appropriate.
(B) Contradicted. Again, the nation in question does not have the responsibility to protect its waters, so no other nation has the ability to demand it of them.
(D) Unsupported. This suggests that the "authority" the nation exercises over its territorial waters is limited to situations where it can contain a threat. There is nothing in the passage to suggest that threat spillover is enough to grant any other entity any authority whatsoever over a nation's territorial waters, or to impose a new obligation or responsibility onto that nation.
(E) Unsupported. There is nothing to suggest that the authority a nation exercises over its territorial waters is limited to its own citizens. Citizenship is only raised as a relevant characteristic in international waters - in territorial waters, authority is indicated to be essentially unlimited.
Note how (C), (D), and (E) all agreed that the nation would be permitted to act, but (D) and (E) go on to limit that authority to only particular circumstances. No such limitations are supported by the passage.
Please let me know if this completely answers your question!
-
- mornincounselor
-
Thanks Received: 4
-
Elle Woods
- Posts: 54
- Joined: June 25th, 2014
Re: Q2
C is a perfect restatement of my pre phase but I couldn't fully and confidently eliminate D.
Let's say the passage said "POTUS is the commander and chief of the military."
Couldn't we conclude that: POTUS, if right handed, is the commander and chief of the military.
Because if /= if, but not otherwise.
Is it the case that we can translate "provided that" to "If, but not otherwise"?
Let's say the passage said "POTUS is the commander and chief of the military."
Couldn't we conclude that: POTUS, if right handed, is the commander and chief of the military.
Because if /= if, but not otherwise.
Is it the case that we can translate "provided that" to "If, but not otherwise"?
3 posts Page 1 of 1