LR Question 17 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: After the Second World War, the charter of the newly…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The five major postwar powers should have vetoes.
REASONING: The great powers maintain world order. They shouldn’t have to obey any decision they disagreed with.
ANALYSIS: There’s one major flaw: the reasoning assumed that the major powers would stay the same. The members of the council with vetoes are permanent. They have permanent and sole authority, so no one else can join them.
This is a real life example. France and the UK were powerful after the war, but less so now. And Germany and Japan are now great powers, but they don’t have vetoes.
___________
- The stimulus didn’t mention democracy among nations. It’s possible to have a council that isn’t a democracy: this one has vetoes, so it’s hard to call it a democracy.
- CORRECT. If new major powers emerged, then they would have the burden of maintaining world peace, but they wouldn’t have the benefit of a veto.
- This doesn’t seem relevant to the question of whether major powers should have vetoes. The stimulus didn’t mention blocs, and we’re not told what effect this has.
- What would be the problem if this did happen? To weaken the argument, there’d have to be some problem with this situation. Alliances are to be expected.
- It’s to be expected that the decisions would favor the major powers. The stimulus argues that major powers should not have to deal with decisions they don’t like.
Recap: The question begins with “After the Second World War, the charter of the newly”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Necessary questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
I still don’t understand why E is wrong, Since the security council assumes that the decisions reached would be biased, it sets the arrangement in place so that any major power would not be forced in doing something they don’t like.
I see where you’re coming from, but the only reason given in the stimulus is that those who have to bear the burden should also have the agency. Which is why B is right, since these members are permanent and have sole authority, they’re assuming that no one else will become a major world power. Why? Because if a new power were to emerge, they’d violate this principle of burden = agency.
I’d actually go as far as to argue that E would need to say the opposite to be logical. If decisions by the majority were biased IN FAVOR of the major powers, why would they need veto rights? It would make more sense if E said decisions are biased against, hence veto rights act as a protection. Even then, B is still the best answer, but just thinking out loud. Hopefully that helps.
I’m pretty sure the stimulus does say that nations should not have to deal with decisions they don’t like, so I’m still not sure why E is wrong.
If your confusion is arising from a typo in the explanation, as I suspect, then you’re absolutely right. The old explanation said “The stimulus argues that major powers should have to deal with decisions they don’t like.” This is a typo. It should say major powers should NOT have to deal with decisions they don’t like. I have fixed this now, thanks for bringing it to our attention!
If you still have questions regarding why E is wrong, please let me know.