Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S2 · Q17 After the Second World War, the

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

After the Second World War, the charter of the newly formed United Nations established an eleven- member Security Council and charged it with taking collective action in response to threats to world peace.

Conclusion

The five nations that were major powers at the time of the UN's founding should permanently have sole authority to cast vetoes.

Evidence

The maintenance of world peace would rest on the world's major powers, and no nation should be required to enforce a decision it found repugnant.

Evaluate

There's a missing link between the Problem identified (a world power might have the burden of enforcing a UN decision it found repugnant) and the Solution (give them veto power).

That might sound like,

We might also get more practical and engage our Plan / Goal faculties. The Goal here was to avoid a world power having to enforce a decision it disagreed with, and the Plan is to provide only those five countries with veto power.

How could this plan fail to achieve its goal?

Could a major power somehow be pressured to not use its veto power, restrained from using its veto power? Could it veto something but still have the burden of enforcing the decision it vetoed?

Goal

Hard to have a great guess of where this is going. Maybe it'll be a missing link that connects the Problem and the Solution.

Maybe it'll be a Defender answer, where if we negated it, it would sound like the Plan won't achieve its Goal.

17.

The reasoning given for the structure of the Security Council assumes that

  1. it does not make sense

    Bad Assumption

    We're just talking about the five nations that get sole veto power. We aren't talking about "providing democracy among nations". Giving five nations veto power on UN decisions doesn't count as "providing for democracy among nations".

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    no nation that was not

    Why this is right

    If we negated this, it would show a big problem with this plan. If a nation wasn't a major power at end of WWII, then they wouldn't be one of the five nations that get a veto. If they later become a major power, then the burden of maintaining peace / enforcing UN decisions would now fall on them. But they don't have veto power, so if they disagree with a UN decision, they will be required to assume the burden of enforcing a decision they find repugnant. This would mean that the plan failed to achieve its goal, because the goal was to avoid that.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    68% picked this

  3. nations would not eventually gravitate

    Bad Assumption

    This has the lovable Defender "not", but when we negate it, it doesn't weaken. If nations gravitate into geographic blocs with at least one major power, does that tell us anything relating to the plan? It sounds like the plan could still work. This doesn't give us any reason to think there will be more than those original five major powers.

    4% picked this

  4. minor powers would not ally

    Bad Assumption

    This has the lovable Defender "not", but when we negate it, it doesn't weaken. If minor nations ally with major ones to influence / benefit from the major nation's veto power, what has that messed up? The major powers are still able to avoid having to enforce any decision they disagree with.

    10% picked this

  5. decisions reached by a majority

    Bad Assumption

    The argument doesn't need to assume all majority decisions would be biased. The plan is definitely assuming that there is a possibility that some UN majority decisions would be found repugnant by at least one major power, and that's why the major powers get a veto. But we don't have to think that a decision is biased in favor of one or more major powers in order to think that a major power might find a decision repugant. It's easy to imagine a UN decision being passed by a majority of nations (all minor nations) and it's biased against all five major powers.

    16% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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