Q2

[pretty_shy96]

I incorrectly chose (D) on this question. When initially reading the choices, none of them sounded correct. Can you please explain as to why the (B) is correct.

Thanks in advance.

[ccheng]

I would be happy to share my thoughts.

Answer choices (B) and (D) are very tempting contenders.

Since this is a function/purpose question, it would be helpful to think the roles these sentences play in the paragraph and whole passage.

Lines 8-11 are about a history of objection - a part of UN charter that has been objected to. Lines 20-22 are about an effort for revision - the proposed amendments by members of delegations.

The specific reason for this proposal is stated in lines 14-17, "the language of Article I was not strong enough, and that the Charter as a whole did not go far enough ...". Answer choice (B) paraphrases this reason well and fits the purposes of these two quoted sentences.

As for answer choice (D), author does not have any opinion in paragraph 1. Note that paragraph 1 is only background information with other's view (delegations'). Author's does not give any opinion until the third paragraph, lines 45-49. Besides, what author believes to be the most important point is the "nonbinding legal status", not the "strength of language" of these documents.

Hope this helps.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, pretty_shy96! Function/purpose questions can be very challenging!

ccheng has some really great thoughts on this! In particular, this reasoning is very strong:

Lines 8-11 are about a history of objection - a part of UN charter that has been objected to. Lines 20-22 are about an effort for revision - the proposed amendments by members of delegations.

The specific reason for this proposal is stated in lines 14-17, "the language of Article I was not strong enough, and that the Charter as a whole did not go far enough ...". Answer choice (B) paraphrases this reason well and fits the purposes of these two quoted sentences.

The key, as ccheng notes, is to realize how the two quotations relate to one another. The first quote is something people didn't like (specifically because the language "was not strong enough"), and the second is what they proposed replace it. (B) captures this contrast perfectly.


Let's review the specific elements that make each other answer incorrect:
(A) The two documents are certainly contrasted, but the passage never defines human rights at all! There's certainly no indication that the two documents had different definitions.
(C) No 'bureaucratic vocabulary' is pointed out. Also, the second is a response to the first, so differences are key, not similarities.
(D) We have no indication that the author thinks these quotes are the most important part of the documents. ccheng is correct that author voice is absent in this first paragraph. Even when we get the author's opinion on the nonbinding legal status much later on, that applies to the UDHR, not the original UN Charter and the proposal being quoted.
(E) While differences are key, nothing about the prose style of each document is noted as significant.


To determine why an author mentions a specific item, look at the surrounding text. It may serve as a sort of connective tissue linking one idea to another, and giving direct indications of author's purpose.

Let me know if this completely answers your question!

[onguyen228]

The most confusing part for me about answer choice (B) is that it is referring to two documents, but in the passage it corresponds to the Article 1 of the 1945 UN Charter and a proposal for the Charter's human rights provisions.

Should I not take the language in the answer choices so literally? Or am I overlooking something? It was the only reason why I had picked (D) over (B). I do see why (D) is wrong now because it wasn't the author's beliefs. Even if I had seen it, I would have still been uneasy about picking (B) as the answer through POE.

Any insights on this would be helpful.

Thanks!