#21 - Must Be True, Principle

[moshei24]

Hi,

I see why answer (B) works as both passages talk about how the Roma not being treated as a minority is detrimental to it, but how is (A) wrong? Is it because it's too extreme? That the authors aren't saying that the vagueness of the formulations CANNOT serve as a basis, but rather that they SHOULD NOT? Is that why that one's wrong?

Can you clarify this question for me, please?

Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

To answer this question, consider the principle that underlies the reasoning in both passages. Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because only the author of passage A addresses the need for clearly formulated definitions in international law. Meanwhile, both authors would agree that to protect the interests of the Roma population, the provisions of international law should be applied in a way that guarantee the Roma’s status as a minority group (lines 17-20 and 44-47), proving that answer choice (B) is correct.

[moshei24]

Thanks!

I must have overlooked the fact that passage B doesn't actually say that they need to change up the definitions; it only speaks about how the definitions affect the Roma.