#26 - Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10837)

The correct answer choice is (C)

This question asks what can be inferred when the English Parliament commits to permanent membership in an international body. This question deals with the central issue of the entire passage: a sovereign rules itself, so it is very difficult for a sovereign to limit its own power. In this instance, it can be inferred that the sovereign could not be bound by such an agreement.

Answer choice (A): Such a commitment would not undermine Parliament’s ability to get credit on good terms, so this choice fails the Fact Test and should be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (B): In the fifth paragraph the author discusses the fact that people had more confidence when Parliament took control of the purse strings, but this has nothing to do with the scenario presented in this question, so this cannot be the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As prephrased in the discussion above, a sovereign has a hard time limiting its own power, and even if a sovereign were to agree to permanent membership, that would not really bind the sovereign to anything.

Answer choice (D): The passage does not provide enough information to determine how commercial interests would feel about such a commitment, so this choice cannot be confirmed by the passage but can be confidently ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (E): A sovereign’s challenge is that it has difficulty limiting its own power; agreeing to permanent membership in a multinational body would not increase its authority, so this cannot be the right answer to this Must Be True question.

[moshei24]

If the power was able to be transferred from the monarch to the Parliament, why can't the Parliament's power be transferred to a multinational body? I don't see a reference to their power not being able to be limited by doing so. The impression that the passage gave me was that the sovereign would need to give their power to something else to be limited, which I thought the multinational body would be. Please clarify this one.

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Moshe,

I think the information you're looking for is on line 57: "Whereas it was once the Crown that lacked the power to bind itself, it is now Parliament that lacks this power." Even if Parliament wanted to bind itself to permanent membership, as this question provides, it could not.

I hope that's helpful--let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

Gotcha. Thanks.

[sarae]

please explain why answer choice C is correct!

thanks

[Steve Stein]

Hi Sara,

As you know, the passage is about the inability to limit one's own power, and In the last paragraph, the author points out that currently, Parliament lacks the ability to bind itself. That suggests that even if it were to try to bind itself contractually, as with a multinational agreement, it would still be able to change course and decide at some point not to honor the agreement--that's the problem with having too much power!

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

~Steve

[sarae]

ok thanks!

[jrc3813]

I had trouble eliminating B. The way I was interpreting it, if parliament became a member of a multinational body it would no longer be omnipotent. If omnipotence leads lenders to be wary of an entity's reliability in honoring financial commitments, then reducing an entity's power by making it a mere member of a international group would maybe provide more confidence for investors to lend. Is this reasoning wrong because we don't know that the international body would impose limits on its members ability to withdraw from financial commitments. It's only a possibility. In other words it could be true, but doesn't have to be true?

Or is it because becoming a member of said body does not mean you necessarily give up your omnipotence?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi jr,
Remember that with MBT questions, never make any undue inferences. Here, the question calls for you to apply the concept of "omnipotence" leading to the issue of the ability (or authority) to bind itself to third parties. The question does not concern "financial" or "lending" commitments. Rather, it is only concerned with the ability of Parliament to bind itself to a multinational body. Therefore, money does not come into play with every question concerning the paradox of omnipotence. So don't overread the question and remember although the passage spoke in parts about terms of lending, it was actually making a much broader point about the authority for the sovereign and Parliament.

Thanks for the great question and I hoped this helped!

[lsnewbie]

Hello,
When I did this question, I assumed that when Parliament became a permanent member of a multinational body, it would relinquish its powers to the multinational body (like the Crown did with Parliament during the Glorious Revolution). Because of this, I picked answer choice A, thinking that creditors might look unfavorably on Parliament's ability to borrow. Was I wrong to make these assumptions? I get why answer choice C is correct, in the sense that when the Crown's power shifted to Parliament, it gave Parliament the power to make and end commitments as it pleased, but I thought Parliament joining a multinational body would give its power over to the multinational body? Could you please clarify? Thanks!