#14 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Coleman]

My last contenders were (B) and (E), and I eliminated (B) because there was no indication of the assumption in the passage that the treaties are "the only" viable type of water-usage agreement. It was tough to narrow down on (E) since the author mostly criticizes the DraftArticles regards to its non-flexibility about water apportion. Is there any other way to attack answer choice (B)?

Thank you!

[Katherinthesky]

Like Coleman, I also had a tough time justifying (E), since "approval" doesn't seem to fully characterize the author's attitude towards the Draft Articles - in fact, the author states that they are "inadequate."

Instead I chose (C), since I felt that fixed water allocation violates the precept that use of watercourses should be "equitable and reasonable" (end of second paragraph).

I acknowledge that (C) seems way too general ("failure to prescribe ways of dealing...") but feel that it's a closer characterization of the author's attitude than (E).

What am I missing?
Thanks in advance.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Katherinthesky and Coleman,

Let's take a look at this one!

Before I jump into the answer choices, I start by looking at the passage to see what the author says about the topic.

The author uses the phrase "significant step forward" (line 30ish), "inadequate" at dealing with potential future issues (line 35), and modeling treaties that are "not flexible enough" (line 47). I have a general sense that while the author is critical of some of the details, that the Draft Articles are generally a move in a positive direction.

It looks like answer choices (B), (C), and (E) were the contenders for you both, so let's see how those choices fit with the general thoughts above.

Answer choice (B) says that the author is skeptical of the assumption that treaties are the only possible option. That assumption isn't challenged in the passage, nor is it clear the Draft Articles are limited to only treaties as options. Further, we can eliminate this one because the author's alternatives to the Draft Articles are mostly treaty suggestions, just treaties that have different sorts of provisions. So this choice isn't a good statement of the author's attitude.

Answer choice (C) isn't the concern either. The author isn't concerned that the Draft Articles have insignificant enforcement procedures; they are concerned that the terms of the suggested treaties themselves are insufficient. It's not that the author thinks countries will go around breaking the rules willy nilly, but that the rules won't be set up to sufficiently and equitably protect everyone's access to water. It's the structure of the treaties that the author objects to, not the potential violations.

Answer choice (E) is the best here. The author agrees with the general goals of the articles. The author thinks the Draft Articles are a step forward, moving toward goals they believe are important. Even if the details aren't exactly how the author would go about reaching those goals, the author agrees with the overall need to protect and regulate international rivers. The author is saying "We all want the same thing here. But, I think there are better ways to reach the goals than the Draft Articles."

Hope that helps!