PT24.S2.Q17 - after the second world war

petitigre

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-24-section-2-question-17/
This question was very confusing to me because I couldn't understand what assumption they could possibly be making.

I originally chose E. On BR, I chose E again. I chose E because of the statement "no nation should be required to assume the burden of enforcing a decision it found repugnant", so I thought the Council must have assumed E, "decisions reached by a majority of nations in response to threats to world peace would be biased in favor of one or more major powers." Because then there would always be a world power who didn't find some particular decision repugnant to enforce that decision.

But the correct answer is B. Of course, after learning the answer, I could make an explanation for why it worked: if there's a newcomer in the world powers club, then the burden of maintaining world peace would no longer rest on the world's major powers (only some of them), which goes against the intentions of the Council.

I'm still unsteady on this question.

c.janson35

The Security Council is making the argument that the P5 nations have veto power because, as the major powers, they have the responsibility to maintain peace and it would be unfair to require major powers to assume this burden in situations they find to be repugnant. Hence, they have the ability to veto decisions they disagree with.

Let's focus on who has the burden of maintaining peace: is it the chartered P5 nations given veto power, or is it the world's major powers? The last sentence clearly states that it is the latter--"the burden of maintaining peace rests on the world's major powers." There is a subtle distinction here, and it is where the author is making his or her assumption. What if the original 5 members lost their status as world powers and the responsibility instead fell on a new emerging world power? This new power, now tasked with maintaining peace, would not have veto power and would therefore have to assume the burden of enacting peace-keeping decisions made by the Council, even if they found the decision to be repugnant--which would destroy the argument!

Thus, for the argument to hold, there must be no nation not among the major powers at the end of WWII that would subsequently become a major power, which is what (B) says and is why it is correct.

One reason E is incorrect because it talks about decisions reached a majority of nations which is not mentioned in the argument at all. The conclusion is only about major powers not having to enforce decisions they find to be repugnant. Also, it is not necessary that any decision made must be biased in favor of a major power. The possibility that a decision is completely neutral toward the interests of all major powers would not destroy the Council's argument.

Hope this helps!