PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 17
After the Second World War, the charter of(84 more words not shown)
The reasoning given for the(7 more words not shown)
- Ait does not(15 more words not shown)
- Bno nation that(19 more words not shown)
- Cnations would not(18 more words not shown)
- Dminor powers would(17 more words not shown)
- Edecisions reached by(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If a country has to carry out a decision, I can see why it would want a way to stop a decision it finds unacceptable. That is the reason given for the veto: the major powers will bear the burden of maintaining peace, so they should not be forced to enforce a decision they find repugnant.
“Repugnant” here means deeply objectionable. Think of a country being expected to commit its people and resources to an action it strongly opposes. The argument connects bearing that burden with having the authority to say no. It gives that authority permanently and exclusively to the five countries that were major powers after the war.
What we’re looking for
The assumption question asks what that justification depends on. My first thought is that the major powers could sometimes find a collective decision objectionable; otherwise this protection wouldn't have much work to do. I'll keep the larger connection in view as well: who bears the burden, and who receives the veto? The necessary assumption has to fit that reasoning, not just describe something about international politics.
Working the answers
- A
This is a principle about whether decision-making among nations should be democratic when some nations are not democracies. The argument makes no such claim. It gives major powers vetoes because of their enforcement burden, not because a mixture of national government types makes international democracy inappropriate. A supplies a different rationale from the one we need to examine.
- BCorrect
This identifies a problem beyond my initial prediction: the list of veto holders is permanent, but the justification is about whichever countries bear the burden as major powers.
Suppose a sixth country becomes a major power later. Under the argument's rationale, it would now share the burden of maintaining peace. Yet the permanent arrangement reserves vetoes for the original five, leaving the new power without the same protection against enforcing a decision it finds repugnant.
To justify keeping that protection exclusively within the original group, the argument needs to rule out a new major power emerging outside it. That's what B says. It doesn't say each of the original five must remain powerful forever; it says no country outside that original group will become a major power.
- C
Countries could form geographical blocs while the argument's relationship between major-power burdens and vetoes remained intact. Merely grouping major and minor powers together doesn't show that a new major power has emerged without veto authority. The reasoning doesn't require a ban on such alliances or groupings.
- D
A minor power could seek an alliance that gives it some indirect protection from a major power's veto. That might raise questions about how the arrangement works in practice, but the argument doesn't promise that minor powers will never benefit from it. Its stated aim is to keep major powers from being forced to enforce objectionable decisions.
- E
A major power could find a decision repugnant without the decision being biased in another major power's favor. For example, it might strongly oppose the action itself. The justification for a veto concerns that objection and the burden of enforcement; it doesn't need a prediction that majority decisions will favor particular powers. E supplies a more specific problem than the rationale requires.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.