Q21

[LSAT-Chang]

I chose (E) for this question... I'm still having trouble as to why it is wrong -- both passages talk about Romans being nomadic and how they cross boundaries frequently.. hmm.. is it the second part about citizens of "BOTH" countries?? I just felt like (E) sounded more like a "principle/rule" whereas (B) didn't... can someone provide any help??

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

I'm going to scold you for a moment: our job is not to pick the answer that sounds "more like a principle/rule"; our job is to pick the answer that is MOST STRONGLY SUPPORTED!!!

When we apply this standard, (E) is clearly incorrect. Quite simply, nowhere does either passage bring up the notion of dual citizenship. There is zero support that either author believes the Roma should be citizens of multiple countries. So this answer can't be right.

(B), on the other hand, is pretty strongly supported. Passage A talks about how the lack of clarity when it comes to recognizing minorities "is particularly problematic for the Roma (Gypsies)." Passage B calls it "patently unfair" that a state should be able to not recognize the Roma as a minority. So both authors clearly think this lack of recognition can be a bad thing for the minority in question.

(A) is out because documents of international law are out of scope.

(C) is out because the passages never address provisions that only apply to minorities.

(D) is out because neither passage addresses "the legal and court systems used by minority populations."

Does that answer your question? Remember, our job is ALWAYS to find SUPPORT IN THE PASSAGE. That's what RC is all about.

[jpchris3]

Can someone clarify (A) is incorrect. I was going to go for (B), but the passage never really states what the Roma's interests are.

[patmichaelsmith]

Can someone clarify (A) is incorrect. I was going to go for (B), but the passage never really states what the Roma's interests are.

I just wrote this and I chose A as well.

From what I gather, Choice A aligns well with Passage A, but fails to address the content of Passage B. As indicated in the question stem it needs both to succeed. While the definition of "national minority" in Passage A is detrimental to Roma interests because of its vagueness, Capotorti's definition, mentioned in Passage B is extremely specific. It's this specificity of the legal criterion in the definition that influences the Roma negatively, which is the polar opposite of vagueness.

[rachellewrx]

Am I the only one who does not see either Roma's interest or the detrimental effect that the vague definition has on them anywhere in Passage A? The passage starts off by saying a term is vaguely defined. Then in paragraph 2, it says the vagueness presents difficulties on certain groups. It continues by saying how different the Roma are. It doesn't say anything about what the Roma's interest is, or what their desire is. Maybe they are ok with not having any citizenship. Maybe they like their nomadic way of life. So how does a vague definition have detrimental effect on them?

So for the reason above, I chose answer A.

Can anyone clarify that please?

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks, all. (A) is incorrect for a couple of reasons. Firstly, neither passage discusses international law. For that reason alone, (A) is out of scope. Secondly, both passages concern challenges created by vague terminology. The first passage states “this lack is particularly problematic” (line 19), while the second passage states “this last element can be problematic…” (line 35). Choice (A) does discuss vague definitions, so that is right. However, the second part of choice (A) is not right. The passages say vagueness creates problems for a group of nomadic people, but it never suggests that vague terms are excluded from actual laws.

[charlotte.f.blatt.18]

Thanks, all. (A) is incorrect for a couple of reasons. Firstly, neither passage discusses international law. For that reason alone, (A) is out of scope. Secondly, both passages concern challenges created by vague terminology. The first passage states “this lack is particularly problematic” (line 19), while the second passage states “this last element can be problematic…” (line 35). Choice (A) does discuss vague definitions, so that is right. However, the second part of choice (A) is not right. The passages say vagueness creates problems for a group of nomadic people, but it never suggests that vague terms are excluded from actual laws.

Hi, I'm confused about why your description makes A wrong. To my understanding, both passages do mention international law, or at the very least passage A does and I took passage B to as well (maybe that is what I am not understanding). Is why A is wrong because neither of the passages say the vague definitions they discuss shouldn't be used in laws, they just say the definitions are vague and then apply the vague definitions to a case study instead? If I am right, I still do not fully understand why A is not an underlying principle behind the passages. Please help!

[ohthatpatrick]

Sorry for the delayed response!

I agree that Psg A certainly talks about international law.

With Psg B, we may use our common sense (or our need to make the passages relate) to get to the idea that we're still talking about international law, but there definitely isn't anything specific.

I don't know who Capotorti is; maybe he's just a law professor.

(A) makes a really harsh claim: "Vague definitions CANNOT serve as the basis for the provisions within a document of international law".

Even if we feel like our authors think that the vague definition for minority SHOULD not be the way we categorize minorities in international law, that's a world apart from arguing that "vague definitions CAN NEVER be the basis for an international law document".

Also, the author of psg B is not complaining that the definition of minority supplied by Capotorti is "vague". The author is mad about the legal criterion: that you be citizens of the state in question. That's not vague. There's paperwork there!

The author is mad because the legal criterion of citizenship means that you're giving the power of denying minority status to governments, since the government determines whether it wants to grant citizenship.

It's not vagueness that psg B hates; it's that the law is "patently unfair" by granting states the right to affect whether minority status is granted.

Hope this helps.