PT 56, RC, #19 Forum

[PeanutsNJam]

How can the answer possibly be E when the author of passage B never once writes the word "international" or references the phrase "international law". I chose A precisely for that reason; the author of passage B says nothing about the "latitude that international law" afford individual states.

[hetookmetoamovie]

I'm definitely a weirdo, but I liked these passages! So, both passages deal with the problems of that arise with "national minority" definitions for the Roma. Passage A talks about how a lack of standard definitions for/ vague conceptions of the terms "national minority," "people," and "nation" have been problematic for the Roma, while Passage B talks about the (unfairly imposed) trouble resulting from the legal criterion of citizenship in one specific definition of "national minority." This is basically a perfect fit for E. "International law" is not present in those exact words in passage B, but I think it's made pretty clear in lines 46-47.

Also, it's the author of passage B that disapproves of the latitude given to individual states in international law, not passage A. So answer choice A is definitely wrong.

Hope this helps!

[PeanutsNJam]

It seems pretty inconsistent that sometimes on the LSAT, you're forced to make inferences to answer a question, whereas on other questions, making an inference will give you precisely the wrong answer choice. Any tips on differentiating when it is and when it isn't to infer something (in this case, infer that passage B talks about international law when it's not explicitly stated).

[hetookmetoamovie]

When does making an inference in an RC question give you the wrong answer? Sorry - I'm having a hard time trying to understand the dilemma you're presenting! I generally approach these types of questions like I do MSS, so I'm always looking at the passage for support/ supported inferences.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

Essentially, you must differentiate between situations where the context is clear, without being explicitly spelled out, and situations where you are simply filling in a gap in a way that might be reasonable, but where there are easily other possibilities.

To take a really silly example: if I say that I forgot my umbrella today, and I got drenched as a result, you'd be allowed to infer that it was raining. I suppose it's possible that someone just poured a bucket of water on me, but that's a bit nutty. I didn't have to tell you in those exact words that it was raining, but you should be able to figure it out.

In this example, what else could Passage B possibly be talking about other than international law? International law is simply the set of rules we accept as binding among different nations. As soon as you starting talking about ANY legal anything that applies across multiple nations, or determines a relationship between two nations, you fit the very definition of international law. Passage B talks about multiple states and the Roma status in all of them. If we *weren't* talking about international law, the author would need to delve into "under French law, blah blah blah, while under German law, blah blah blah". Instead, the author discusses "grant[ing] the state the arbitrary right" (where 'state' is a generic state, not a particular government), and suggests that the Roma should be considered a minority "in all European states".

Additionally, hetookmetoamovie is spot on in noting that Author A never expresses *any* disapproval of the latitude, merely describes it. So (A) would be incorrect no matter how you slice it.

[hetookmetoamovie]

Wonderful explanation, Christine! Thanks! You could do this for a living!

[PeanutsNJam]

Makes sense thanks folks