Logical Reasoning

PT10 · S4 · Q11 The foreign minister of Zeria

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

The foreign minister of Zeria announced today that her country was severing diplomatic relations with Nandalo because of Nandalo’s flagrant violations of human rights.

Conclusion (therefore)

Despite the foreign minister’s claim, this latest diplomatic move cannot be explained exclusively by Zeria’s commitment to upholding human rights.

Evidence

Zeria is severing diplomatic relations with Nandalo because of Nandalo’s flagrant violations of human rights.

Zeria maintains diplomatic relations with many countries with worse human-rights records than Nandalo.

Evaluate

This argument is structured as an Explain Curious Fact. The Curious Fact here is why Zeria is severing diplomatic relations with Nandalo despite maintaining relations with countries with worse human-rights records.

Curious Fact

Why is Zeria severing relations with Nandalo despite maintaining them with worse offenders?

Author's Explanation

The diplomatic move is not driven exclusively by Zeria’s commitment to human rights. To strengthen this argument, we need an alternative reason beyond human rights for why Zeria would cut diplomatic ties with Nandalo.

Goal

Let's find an answer that provides an Alternate Explanation for why Zeria severed relations with Nandalo, other than human rights concerns.

11.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for the argument in the passage?

Correct
The country that currently buys
Why this is right
This answer provides an alternative motive: pressure from a trading partner on Zeria to sever ties with Nandalo. If Zeria's main export partner threatened trade restrictions unless Zeria took this diplomatic action, it clearly supports the argument that the motivation wasn't purely about human rights.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
87% picked this
Two weeks after the Zerian
No Impact
This informs us of actions other countries took after Zeria's decision. It does not provide an alternate reason for Zeria's decision, so it doesn’t support the notion that the move wasn’t purely about human rights.
3% picked this
More countries have expressed concern
No Impact
This answer provides comparative information about international concern over human-rights violations in Nandalo and Zeria, but does not provide an alternate explanation for Zeria's severing of relations.
2% picked this
Nandalo has considered accusing Zeria
No Impact
This option discusses a potential allegation by Nandalo against Zeria. This does not provide an alternative reason for Zeria's diplomatic actions and thus doesn't bolster the argument that the move wasn’t exclusively about human rights.
2% picked this
The opposition party in Zeria
No Impact
This choice provides information about the stance of Zeria's opposition party concerning human rights. However, it doesn’t contribute to explaining the real reason behind Zeria's foreign minister's decision.
5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free