- Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:22 am
#96681
Hi Rachael,
I read your explanation for eliminating D. The word "revise," which means "to alter," is central to your elimination. I bring your attention to the last paragraph concerning "fixed allocation" of amounts of water that would unjustly favor countries with the most extensive water usage.
To my mind, we cannot improve the Drafts without altering the provisions that allocate fixed amounts of water, which, in turn, necessitates "revisions" of the Drafts, at the very minimum in part. We cannot keep that provision in place and then add another advocating for more flexible, and hence non-fixed, water allocation unless we assume a contradictorily drafted treaty. The extreme nature of this assumption warrants the revision, I feel!
The word "revise" is an important one, and I worry that I might be missing a subtly articulated nuance, in your explanation; a criterion that could potentially be the only line of distinction between too very close answer-choices!
And so, would you please elaborate further on why "revise" is the grounds for eliminating D?
(Side note: I feel that D is the wrong choice, but not because of the word "revise", but because C is better in the sense that it captures D while adding the author's appreciation of the ILC Drafts, an appreciation articulated in the first sentence of the third paragraph and captures by the words "significant step forward," lines 32-37.)
Thank You
Respectfully,
Mazen