LSAT 34, Reading Comprehension, Q20, LSATHacks

RC Question 20 Explanation, by LSATHacks

DISCUSSION: The drafters were intentionally vague. So they probably thought there was an advantage to vagueness.

___________

1. Maybe? Or maybe they wanted to give countries a broad enough law that they could work everything out themselves.
2. Lines 19-23 say that the IRO document didn’t mention social groups. They probably also didn’t mention women. So by including social groups, the Convention probably broke with tradition by allowing the inclusion of women, indirectly. 
3. CORRECT. If the drafters thought they could list every category, then they probably wouldn’t have included “social group” as a separate category. They could just have listed each group directly and have been done with it. 
4. Hard to say. There are other reasons for being vague, apart from not caring. They may have thought that countries would reject the Convention if it explicitly protected women.
5. Same as D. There are other reasons for not listing something directly. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.