Q17

[cyruswhittaker]

Can you please explain #17, and more generally, the way in which we should attack these type of context questions?

Thanks

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question!

So, both authors use the word "problematic" to describe aspects of international law or legal theory that they believe are unfair to the Roma. In other words, these things make life tough and unfair for this gypsy society.

Answer (C) comes closest to this meaning. Both authors' main point is that these legal criteria or categories make it difficult for the Roma to be recognized as a minority.

(A) is way off. Where does either author talk about intense debate?

(B) is tempting, but nowhere does the author of Passage B argue that the definition in question is confusing or unclear.

(D) is also tempting, but keep in mind that the word "problematic" is referring to legal definitions, not to their consequences. It wouldn't make any sense to say that a definition is "difficult to solve."

(E) doesn't really factor into either argument. The authors criticize international law and Capotorit's definition for being vague, unfair, and arbitrary, but never attack its theoretical consistency.


In general, if these context questions are giving you trouble, one tactic you might try is to insert each answer choice into the relevant sentences. (This may require a little reworking.) So with answer (A), for example, we'd have:

"While the lack of definition of the terms 'minority,' 'people,' and 'nation' presents difficulties to numerous minority groups, this lack particularly gives rise to intense debate for the Roma (Gypsies)."

I think that makes it a little clearer that this doesn't make sense; the author doesn't go on to talk about any intense debate.

On the other hand, if we try (C):

"While the lack of definition of the terms 'minority,' 'people,' and 'nation' presents difficulties to numerous minority groups, this lack results in difficulties particularly for the Roma (Gypsies)."

Now, that looks better. The author is saying that while the vagueness of these terms presents difficulties to many groups, it presents even more difficulties to the Roma.

Let me know if you find that technique useful. In general, though, we treat these questions just like all RC questions: by working from wrong to right.

[RebekahD410]

Im still having difficulty understanding the difference between C and D. I feel like "resulting in difficulties" is a odd definition also. and since the both passages are talking abt the difficulties of the Roma in the context of the legal definition of national minority, I feel like problematic can be referring to the difficulty of solving the discrepancy.

[ohthatpatrick]

Try plugging them into the sentence.

For line 19, we're saying that "the lack of a clear definition for 'minority' is particularly difficult to solve for the Roma."

Are the Roma the people who are responsible for solving the problem of defining 'minority' in a clear way for the international law?

Of course not.

If we try (C), it's saying
"the lack of a clear definition for 'minority' is particularly resulting in difficulties for the Roma."

That seems more apt; it's saying "The Roma get screwed more than most by this nebulous definition."

(D) is saying "The Roma find it particularly hard to solve the problem of how to define 'national minority' in international law."

Similarly, in line 35, we'd be saying
"The int'l law requirement that 'minorities' must be citizens of the state where they reside is difficult to solve, given that the Roma don't have citizenship often."

There's no context here that makes the last legal criterion a "problem" that we should "solve".

Again, if we swap in (C), we're saying
"The int'l law requirement that 'minorities' must be citizens of the state where they reside is resulting in difficulties, given that the Roma don't have citizenship often."

Both times, we're saying "this definition really screws the Roma, because they are clearly a minority but they don't fit the definition."