#25 - Specific Reference, Must Be True

[Adam Tyson]

That's great, cgleeson! That's exactly what you should do in those situations when you aren't completely sure you understand a question or an answer choice but know that four of the answers must be wrong. Select the one that's left because it must be the best answer! I always say "confusion = contender," and that means you should never reject an answer if you are unsure what it means. If you're unsure, then there is a chance it's correct, and you must treat it as such at least until a better answer comes along.

Let's break the question down into parts to help out here:

1) "It can be inferred from the passage": this means that we're looking at something that is directly supported by the text of the passage and will be based exclusively on what the passage said and not on any assumptions we might make about the text. Reject every answer that requires new information that wasn't provided, like that stuff in answer A about other laws, and the bit in answer E about the Constitution explicitly defining things. The passage never said anything about any of that.

2) "that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is applicable only in "the absence of a declaration of war": that's the inference that the first part of the question is drawing, which means the author believes that this claim must be true and follows from the text. The passage didn't say this explicitly, but we now have to accept that it's true because the way the question is worded is telling us that it is. They called it an inference, so we must treat it as one.

3) "because": that's the prompt, and it means the correct answer will tell us WHY we are able to draw that inference. And what allows us to draw any inference? Evidence. So we need to find evidence in the passage that supports the inference that was described in the question stem. Why is it only applicable in that case? Why not also apply it in cases where there IS a declaration of war?

From there you need to go to the passage and figure out why the Resolution only applies when there is no declaration of war, and while once again the author never explicitly tells us why, we can use the context. The whole passage is about the use of troops in the absence of a declaration of war and how the Resolution sought to put some limitations on that, so the overall implication is that when war HAS been declared, they don't need it. An actual war just doesn't raise the same concerns about the President usurping Congress' power.

Break it into smaller pieces to better understand what they are asking. But remember, even if you still don't understand the question, or if an answer choice has you confused, you can still select a correct answer with confidence if you have a good reason for rejecting four answer choices!

[cgleeson]

Thanks again Adam!!!

That's great, cgleeson! That's exactly what you should do in those situations when you aren't completely sure you understand a question or an answer choice but know that four of the answers must be wrong. Select the one that's left because it must be the best answer! I always say "confusion = contender," and that means you should never reject an answer if you are unsure what it means. If you're unsure, then there is a chance it's correct, and you must treat it as such at least until a better answer comes along.

Let's break the question down into parts to help out here:

1) "It can be inferred from the passage": this means that we're looking at something that is directly supported by the text of the passage and will be based exclusively on what the passage said and not on any assumptions we might make about the text. Reject every answer that requires new information that wasn't provided, like that stuff in answer A about other laws, and the bit in answer E about the Constitution explicitly defining things. The passage never said anything about any of that.

2) "that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is applicable only in "the absence of a declaration of war": that's the inference that the first part of the question is drawing, which means the author believes that this claim must be true and follows from the text. The passage didn't say this explicitly, but we now have to accept that it's true because the way the question is worded is telling us that it is. They called it an inference, so we must treat it as one.

3) "because": that's the prompt, and it means the correct answer will tell us WHY we are able to draw that inference. And what allows us to draw any inference? Evidence. So we need to find evidence in the passage that supports the inference that was described in the question stem. Why is it only applicable in that case? Why not also apply it in cases where there IS a declaration of war?

From there you need to go to the passage and figure out why the Resolution only applies when there is no declaration of war, and while once again the author never explicitly tells us why, we can use the context. The whole passage is about the use of troops in the absence of a declaration of war and how the Resolution sought to put some limitations on that, so the overall implication is that when war HAS been declared, they don't need it. An actual war just doesn't raise the same concerns about the President usurping Congress' power.

Break it into smaller pieces to better understand what they are asking. But remember, even if you still don't understand the question, or if an answer choice has you confused, you can still select a correct answer with confidence if you have a good reason for rejecting four answer choices!

[CammeronJ]

Hi saygracealways!

This is a good example of a Specific Reference question where you actually need to know what's happening elsewhere in the passage to answer it. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is mentioned in multiple areas of the passage and they are all relevant to a question about it. Check out the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, which states: "the spirit of the Constitution at least requires that Congress should be involved in the decision to deploy troops, and in passing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Congress has at last reclaimed a role in such decisions" (lines 20-25). Earlier in that same paragraph, it states that "the Constitution gives Congress the basic power to declare war" (lines 9-10). This suggests that the Resolution is necessary to involve Congress in the decision to employ troops when there hasn't been a declaration of war, because they're already involved in the decision when they pass a declaration of war. The purpose of the Resolution was to ensure that Congress was still involved in the decision to deploy troops, so that's why it only applies when Congress hasn't already been involved in that decision.

For answer choice (A), the purpose of the Resolution is to ensure Congress' involvement, not to set out presidential requirements. We don't have enough information to prove that other laws set out presidential requirements for situations in which war has already been declared. This law is more about setting out Congress' involvement.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

It really seems like the specific passage referenced is talking about presidential requirements. Could you please go into more detail about this or the other reasons why A is incorrect?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Sure thing, Cammeron.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed as an attempt for Congress to clarify its role in potential war-related conflicts. The passage explains that prior to this, it was unclear who could send troops to conflicts. On the one hand, the Constitution gave Congress the authority to declare war; on the other hand, the President was listed in the Constitution as the Commander in Chief. The President traditionally had taken his powers to mean that he could send troops as long as he did not declare war. Congress did not like that, leading to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

The resolution was designed to make it clear that Congress needs a voice in sending troops. The reason they mention that it applies in the absence of a declared war is that Congress already is involved in declaring war. Congress doesn't need to pass a law to clarify its role in declaring wars. The Constitution already did that. However, it DID need to clarify what happens in the case of undeclared war.

For answer choice (A), Congress hadn't already passed laws about presidential requirements in situations where war had been declared. It was the Constitution that set out those roles and requirements. We don't know any laws that they have passed that relate to wars that have already been declared. It's an unknown, so it's incorrect here.

For answer choice (B), it explains the WHY it was only applying to undeclared wars. The declared wars were already covered. Answer choice (B) states that fairly directly. The Act was limiting the President's powers, but only in the situation where they were not already limited by Constitutional language.

Hope that helps!

[CammeronJ]

Sure thing, Cammeron.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed as an attempt for Congress to clarify its role in potential war-related conflicts. The passage explains that prior to this, it was unclear who could send troops to conflicts. On the one hand, the Constitution gave Congress the authority to declare war; on the other hand, the President was listed in the Constitution as the Commander in Chief. The President traditionally had taken his powers to mean that he could send troops as long as he did not declare war. Congress did not like that, leading to the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

The resolution was designed to make it clear that Congress needs a voice in sending troops. The reason they mention that it applies in the absence of a declared war is that Congress already is involved in declaring war. Congress doesn't need to pass a law to clarify its role in declaring wars. The Constitution already did that. However, it DID need to clarify what happens in the case of undeclared war.

For answer choice (A), Congress hadn't already passed laws about presidential requirements in situations where war had been declared. It was the Constitution that set out those roles and requirements. We don't know any laws that they have passed that relate to wars that have already been declared. It's an unknown, so it's incorrect here.

For answer choice (B), it explains the WHY it was only applying to undeclared wars. The declared wars were already covered. Answer choice (B) states that fairly directly. The Act was limiting the President's powers, but only in the situation where they were not already limited by Constitutional language.

Hope that helps!

Thank you!