#6 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Question Line Reference
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=27529)

The correct answer choice is (A)

The justification for the correct answer can be found on:

(Lines 11-17): "there were...basic human rights"

[Nina]

How can I discern that answer A is the correct one? for example, why is answer C incorrect?

Many thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Can you clarify your question a bit? How did you approach Q6? Do you understand what the stem is asking you to do? If so, do you fully understand the views expressed in lines 11-14? Can you also explain what made answer choice (C) attractive, and why did you reject answer choice (A)?

The more you tell us about your approach to the questions you found challenging, the better we can help you understand what you missed.

Thanks!

[Nina]

Thanks Nikki! I didn't realize that my question was not clear enough, sorry for that. The way i understand the views in lines 11-14 is that those members are the same ones who later require stronger languages of Charter to protect human rights, which stated as "to take separate and joint action and to co-operate with the organization for the promotion of human rights." Thus i thought the approaches in answer C reflects their requirement of "separate and joint action, and co-operation with the organization". But i guess maybe the wording of "censure vote" is not appropriate, or is there something wrong with the approach in that situation?

Thanks a lot!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Nina,

You referenced the right portion of the passage, but that leads to answer choice A, which does describe a joint action, with the General Assembly authenticating and the government in question acting to remedy the situation. The problem with answer choice C, as you correctly point out, is that voting to censure doesn't include joint action or cooperation called for by the delegates and representatives mentioned.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Nina]

yeah, it's all clear now. Thanks Steve!

[LustingFor!L]

Is C wrong, because it's only one agency (UN and General Assembly) while A is the UN General Assembly and Government of the Member State?

[AthenaDalton]

Yes.

The delegates in lines 11-14 called for a requirement that member states "take separate and joint action" on human rights issues. Answer choice (A) indicates that the member state would be required to take action, while answer choice (C) only discusses the UN criticizing the action, without any member states taking action.

[itstanaya]

I’m having trouble seeing why (B) and (C) are wrong, and why (A) is right. The portion of the passage I used to answer the question is: “there were members of delegations from various small countries and representatives of several nongovernmental organizations who felt that the language of Article 1 was not strong enough, and that the Charter as a whole did not go far enough in its efforts to guarantee basic human rights. This group lobbied vigorously to strengthen the Charter’s human rights provisions and proposed that member states be required "to take separate and joint action and to co-operate with the organization for the promotion of human rights." This would have implied an obligation for member states to act on human rights issues.”

Here’s my reasoning:

(B) - “The UN General Assembly stipulates that any proposed response must be unanimously accepted by member states before it can be implemented.”

This requires member states to “take… action” and cooperate with the UN “for the promotion of human rights” by required member states to vote on issues of human rights violations.

(C) - “The UN issues a report critical of the actions of the member state in question and calls for a censure vote in the General Assembly.”

Along similar lines, this answer, like (B), requires the participation of member states in a vote, which satisfies the demands of the the delegates and advocates (that member states take action and co-operate with the organization)

I did not choose (A) because it does not obligate member states to take action when it comes to human rights violations.

[Robert Carroll]

Tanaya,

That quotation is the relevant information for the answer.

Answer choice (B) is not requiring anyone to take action. It's almost doing the opposite - unanimous acceptance is required before implementation, so the procedure discussed in this answer would, if anything, slow down any response. It's not going to make any member state take action on human rights, but instead put a bunch of hoops (votes) to jump through before any action is accomplished. The delegates and representatives in lines 11-14 wanted action to prevent, stop, or remedy human rights abuses - voting would be useless action to them unless accompanied by substantive actions that correct abuses.

Answer choice (C) is a little better than answer choice (B), in that it's supporting some action taken, but the action isn't substantive action that directly correct abuses. A vote of censure really doesn't do anything. Consider the victims of human rights abuses. I don't think they'd argue AGAINST a vote of censure against the entities that have abused their rights, but they'd much rather have actual action taken to stop the abuses. And it seems like the people in lines 11-14 were looking for that kind of action, not censures which might not lead to any action beyond the censure itself.

Answer choice (A) is precisely getting the responsible state to correct the abuses under their watch. That's the kind of action we want.

Robert Carroll