#27 - Concept Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[ed]

Hello,
I'm wondering why D is incorrect. Is it too specific, and a little off the mark? D seems good at first glance, but after a second look, I see it mentions treaties instead of norms, whereas A mentions "international law" (= norms). D is also specific to the example given in the passage, but A has a more holistic focus.

[Robert Carroll]

Ed,

Look at the first sentence of the passage: the norms of customary international law discussed extensively are informal legal principles, whereas treaties are formalized (and, as the sentence points out, pretty lacking in this area). Answer choice (D) is then about the wrong kind of provision, as the norms are precisely not formalized into treaties.

Robert Carroll

[david.koeller]

Hi Ed,

I'd like to add a little here if I can as this question was tricky for me as well. You're exactly right that at first blush, D seems pretty good. In fact, I almost changed my answer to D, but time expired and I kept A.

In retrospect, it's a lot clearer to me now. I agree with your point and Robert here. The passage doesn't even mention treaties until line 51, so how can the empirical studies discussed in line 29 be referencing treaties as D states? I think in a lot of the questions in this passage, the writers were trying to test you on that distinction between the treaties and formalized negotiations vs amorphous and non-codified principles (also the difference between those principles and how they are applied).

To take it a step further though, the writers really modulated the difficulty of this question by disguising and complicating the language of the correct AC. This question could've been a lot easier. My pre-phrase for the AC was something along the lines of there is a dearth of empirical investigation into the extent of how often harmful pollutants cross international borders of countries that claim to abide by these international norms . The correct AC here kind of takes a little translating, but actually matches up with the pre-phrase quite nicely. There is a dearth of investigation into "The extent to which actions of nations..." aka extent to which nations pollute across borders, "...conform to principles of customary intentional law" aka conform to the claim that they do not pollute/abide by norms.

The question also hinges on your understanding of the word dearth which adds to the difficulty.

Hope that helps

[silver2731]

I had difficulty understanding the answer A because it was immediately crossed out for me.

Here's my reasoning:

The author is saying at the last paragraph that the scholars are wasting time focusing on seeking remedy through customary international law. It is because it will go no where since countries have not and will not follow. What's more promising is researching on the ways through direct negotiation/mediation/treaty between each country.

So I thought there was dearth of investigation on the research on direct negotiations. Found B reluctantly but thought it supports the author by providing evidence that it is more effective medium than the law.

A however seems to say that author wants more investigation on the law?

Is A correct because it actually pointing out that there's lack of investigation as the lack of evidence? not as encouragement for more investigation?

[Robert Carroll]

silver2731,

The answer to this question is found in the second paragraph, near the end, where the author directly talks about the lack of empirical studies. The author says there is a lack of studies into the actual behavior of nations, specifically whether they actually act in ways that reflect adherence to international environmental norms. The last paragraph is not relevant here.

Robert Carroll