Q19

[cyruswhittaker]

For number 19, the correct answer is E, but I am a bit confused by this. I agree that the first part of choice E is correct, but the last part "anomalous and special" seems a bit unsupported.

In passage A, the author does indicate that the lack is "particularly problematic" (line 19), but in passage B, the author goes right into discussion of the Roma in line 35-36, with no indication that their problems are "anomalous and special." I don't find any indication, explicitly or implicitly, that he is referring to them as a particularly unique example.

I can get this answer by elimination, but I'd really like to understand how this is supported. Thanks

[giladedelman]

Excellent, excellent question. I feel your pain. It is hard to spot the way in which the author of Passage B considers the Roma to be anomalous. I think the best we can do is look to lines 34-39, in which the author describes the ways in which the Roma don't really fit into the standard categories through which minority status can be conferred. To that extent, we can say that the author considers the case of the Roma to be anomalous.

But frankly, I agree with you that this is a case of "find the least wrong answer." To wit:

(A) is incorrect because Author B clearly disapproves as well.

(B) is incorrect because Author A certainly considers this to be a noteworthy case of international law's ineffectiveness.

(C) is fully out of scope. Neither author weighs in on whether the Roma constitute a nation.

(D) is even more out of scope. Neither author distinguishes between case-by-case and international solutions.

I hope that helps a little! Strange question.

[farhadshekib]

Excellent, excellent question. I feel your pain. It is hard to spot the way in which the author of Passage B considers the Roma to be anomalous. I think the best we can do is look to lines 34-39, in which the author describes the ways in which the Roma don't really fit into the standard categories through which minority status can be conferred. To that extent, we can say that the author considers the case of the Roma to be anomalous.

But frankly, I agree with you that this is a case of "find the least wrong answer." To wit:

(A) is incorrect because Author B clearly disapproves as well.

(B) is incorrect because Author A certainly considers this to be a noteworthy case of international law's ineffectiveness.

(C) is fully out of scope. Neither author weighs in on whether the Roma constitute a nation.

(D) is even more out of scope. Neither author distinguishes between case-by-case and international solutions.

I hope that helps a little! Strange question.

I think you are right.

The author of P -B starts off outlining Capotorti's definition of a minority, and the suggests that the one legal criterion - that is, being a citizen of the state in question - does not apply to the Roma given their "previous nomadic character" (lines 35).

The rest of the passage, then, is dedicated to discussing how the Roma fullfill the other four objective elements.

It seems as if the newer RC's have about 1 - 2 question that requires some deep digging and efficient use of the POE.

Its so frustrating.

[zainrizvi]

Unsure as to where Author A says that international law can be ineffective.. just because it presents difficulty, how can we make inference that it is ineffective?

[lhermary]

I didn't pick E for this one because of lines 17-20. 'The lack of a definition presents difficulty to numerous minority groups.'

[eunjung.shin]

Hello, LSAt experts!

Does B talk about international law at all? It does talk about capotorti's definition.... Where inthe passage in B that roma dace problems in relation to int'l law? Or is it implicit?

Thanks!

[zagreus77]

I got E, but hated it. Still do. B doesn't mention international law as such at all. Nor does B point out that the Roma are anomalous... merely that they meet one standard, Cap's,and not a legal criterion of citizenship. The only way I got this right was because the others were worse. But to infer that B thinks the Roma are an anomalous and special case let alone one that bore that relation to the unreferenced international law does not seem evident from the text. This is a time to use Adkins analogy when you have to date a person with really bad halitosis because all the rest are even worse.

[zagreus77]

Excellent, excellent question. I feel your pain. It is hard to spot the way in which the author of Passage B considers the Roma to be anomalous. I think the best we can do is look to lines 34-39, in which the author describes the ways in which the Roma don't really fit into the standard categories through which minority status can be conferred. To that extent, we can say that the author considers the case of the Roma to be anomalous.

But frankly, I agree with you that this is a case of "find the least wrong answer." To wit:

(A) is incorrect because Author B clearly disapproves as well.

(B) is incorrect because Author A certainly considers this to be a noteworthy case of international law's ineffectiveness.

(C) is fully out of scope. Neither author weighs in on whether the Roma constitute a nation.

(D) is even more out of scope. Neither author distinguishes between case-by-case and international solutions.

I hope that helps a little! Strange question.

Especially strange in light of fact that the thrust of the argument is that they should be accorded minority status in light of the fact that they do fit Caps empirical definition , and thus, despite not meeting the citizenship requirement, are a minority and should be treated as such. But we have no indication about the source of law operative in B-- it could be the EU charter; it could be international law; it could be that Cap is just an authority on social anthropology, or just a very respected expert on jurisprudence relative to minorities and his views are not legal or legally authoritative views at all , just empirical guideposts or reasoned opinion.

This is a real POE and the right answer is still shaky for the reasons stated. I love the LSAT and think it is the gold standard for standardized tests, but this particular question doesn't meet the high bar typical of the LSAT. Maybe the kinks in the comparative reading passages (comp passages were only introduced in 2007) hadn't been fully worked out at the time of this test. Who knows?

[yjj182]

I eliminated A because nowhere in passage B is Captori's definition mentioned as an international law.

anyone?

[oyxy1111]

I eliminated A because nowhere in passage B is Captori's definition mentioned as an international law.

anyone?

I guess you refer to E. Same question here. It seems that international law is only mentioned in Passage A, which is never, even once, mentioned in the passage B.

[ohthatpatrick]

We're with you, everybody!

It's a terribly written question, and kinda unfair, given the usual standard of LSAT support.

I agree with the earlier poster who keenly observed that on modern RC sections, there seem to be 1-2 questions that do NOT pass muster with the normal correspondence between answer choice language and textual support.

For these royal stinkball questions, you have to get rid of the terrible answers and plug your nose while you pick the least-worst, reminding yourself that "SOME support" is better than "NO support / contradicted".

The only thing I can say to defend LSAT's thinking that Psg B connects to international law diffusely is lines 44-47.

They fulfill C's definition and should, therefore, be considered in a minority in all major European states.

We can infer, from that sentence, that the author of psg. B thinks that C's definition has some bearing on international law.

Now let's forget this terrible question ever happened.

[phoebster21]

I didn't pick E for this one because of lines 17-20. 'The lack of a definition presents difficulty to numerous minority groups.'

I TOTALLY had the same reasoning for not picking E. However, I realized later that it IS possible for a law to present problems for many groups, etc, but also *particularly* difficult/troublesome for one group.

Could anyone further chime in? Because when a line specifically says, " the lack of definition...presents difficulties ot numerous minority groups," it almost seems antithesis to saying, Group X (i.e. Roma) are a special and unique case...