LSAT 109 – Section 1 – Question 14

LSAT 109 - Section 1 - Question 14

December 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:48

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT109 S1 Q14
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
A
4%
160
B
83%
167
C
6%
163
D
2%
159
E
5%
160
138
149
160
 +Medium 148.877 +SubsectionMedium

After the United Nations Security Council authorized military intervention by a coalition of armed forces intended to halt civil strife in a certain country, the parliament of one UN member nation passed a resolution condemning its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action. A parliamentary leader insisted that the overwhelming vote for the resolution did not imply the parliament’s opposition to the anticipated intervention; on the contrary, most members of parliament supported the UN plan.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did parliament vote to condemn the prime minister for promising aid to a plan most members of that parliament supported?

Objective
A hypothesis resolving this discrepancy must identify a reason for parliament to condemn its prime minister that does not rely on disagreement over the need for an intervention. Parliament must take issue with some aspect of the prime minister’s actions other than his support for the UN plan.

A
The UN Security Council cannot legally commit the military of a member nation to armed intervention in other countries.
This does not pertain to the situation described. It was the prime minister who promised military personnel, not the UN Security Council.
B
In the parliamentary leader’s nation, it is the constitutional prerogative of the parliament, not of the prime minister, to initiate foreign military action.
This is a reason for parliament to condemn the prime minister. If only parliament can promise military action, then they condemned the prime minister for exceeding his authority, not for supporting the UN plan.
C
The parliament would be responsible for providing the funding necessary in order to contribute military personnel to the UN intervention.
This does not account for parliament’s support for the intervention. Since parliament supports the UN plan, they would not object to the prime minister’s promise simply because funding the action is their own responsibility.
D
The public would not support the military action unless it was known that the parliament supported the action.
This does not account for the parliamentary leader’s statements. He states that parliament overwhelmingly supports the military action, so it is already known that parliament favors the plan, regardless of their vote.
E
Members of the parliament traditionally are more closely attuned to public sentiment, especially with regard to military action, than are prime ministers.
This does not explain the discrepancy between parliament’s support for the measure and their condemnation of the prime minister. Parliament and the prime minister support the intervention, regardless of public sentiment.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply