PrepTest 109, Section 1, Question 14
After the United Nations Security Council authorized military(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AThe UN Security(16 more words not shown)
- BIn the parliamentary(20 more words not shown)
- CThe parliament would(17 more words not shown)
- DThe public would(15 more words not shown)
- EMembers of the(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“We support the intervention. We don't support you making that decision for us.” Those positions could fit together perfectly well.
At first, Parliament's condemnation sounds like opposition to sending military personnel. Then we learn that most members actually support the UN plan. So perhaps the dispute is over who gets to commit the country's forces. The prime minister might have stepped into a decision that belongs to Parliament. The members could want the intervention and still object to being bypassed.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to resolve that apparent conflict. I'd look for a difference between agreeing with the policy and approving the way the prime minister acted. A rule giving Parliament the decision would explain both its support for the plan and its anger at the promise.
Working the answers
- A
The UN Security Council's authority isn't the decision we need to explain. The prime minister promised the personnel; the passage doesn't say the Security Council legally committed this nation's forces. A leaves open why Parliament would condemn its own prime minister despite supporting the plan.
- BCorrect
This gives Parliament the authority to initiate foreign military action and denies that authority to the prime minister. The prime minister has promised something that Parliament is supposed to decide.
Now the reactions make sense together. Most members support the UN plan, but they object to the prime minister going beyond the office's authority. Their condemnation concerns the process and who controls it; it need not express opposition to the intervention itself.
- C
Responsibility for funding doesn't, by itself, explain the condemnation. Parliament could support the intervention and willingly fund it. It could also have concerns about the expense, but C doesn't tell us that it does or explain what the prime minister did wrong. We'd have to supply that additional story ourselves. B directly identifies the authority the prime minister exceeded.
- D
This describes what the public would require before supporting the action. Our puzzle concerns Parliament's attitude toward the prime minister. D doesn't say why members who support the action would condemn the promise. We'd need extra assumptions about what public reaction they expect and how the condemnation serves their purpose.
- E
Being more attuned to public sentiment doesn't tell us what that sentiment is or why these members object to the prime minister. We already know most of them support the UN plan. E supplies no reason for their support to coexist with condemnation of the person who promised military personnel.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.