Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT127 S4 P3 Q19 Explanation

Roma Minority Group

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor's AttitudeLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage A There is no universally accepted definition within international law for the term “national minority.” It is most commonly applied to (1) groups of persons—not necessarily citizens—under the jurisdiction of one country who have ethnic ties to another “homeland” country, or (2) groups of citizens of a country who have lasting reason, perhaps, “people” is often used instead of “nation” for groups subject to a colonial power.

While the lack of definition of the terms “minority,” “people,” and “nation” presents difficulties to numerous minority groups, this lack is particularly “problematic” for the Roma (Gypsies). The Roma are not a colonized people, they do not have a homeland, and many do not bear ties to any currently existing country. Some have ethnic and linguistic ties to other groups of Roma that reside in other countries.

Passage B Capotorti’s definition of a minority includes four empirical criteria—a group’s being numerically smaller than the rest of the population of the state; their being nondominant; their having distinctive ethnic, linguistic, or religious characteristics; and their desiring to preserve their own culture—and one legal criterion, that they be citizens of the reference to empirical characteristics, it seems patently unfair that it should be included in the definition.

However, the Roma easily fulfill the four objective elements of Capotorti’s definition and should, therefore, be considered a minority in all major European states. Numerically, they are nowhere near a majority, though they number in the hundreds of thousands, even millions, in some states. Their nondominant position is evident—they are not even and identity through centuries of persecution is evidence enough of their desire to preserve their culture.

What this question is testing

Author's Attitude

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
19.

The authors’ views regarding the status of the Roma can most accurately be described in which one of

Answer choices

  1. Reversed10% picked this

    The author of passage A, but not the author of passage B, disapproves of the latitude that international law allows individual states in determining

    Passage B, not A, seems to disapprove of allowing individual states to determine their own policy toward the Roma. The last sentence of B's first paragraph laments that Because this essentially grants the state the arbitrary right to decide ... it seems patently unfair So this answer could work if we switched the A and the B.

  2. Not a Distinction6% picked this

    The author of passage B, but not the author of passage A, considers the problems of the Roma to be a noteworthy example of

    Neither author is really trying to make this broad criticism of international law. To the extent that each of them is highlighting a problematic aspect of international law in relation to the Roma, they're on pretty equal footing in agreeing that the Roma are a noteworthy example of how legal definitions can be tricky.

  3. Not a Distinction5% picked this

    The author of passage B, but not the author of passage A, considers the Roma to be a paradigmatic example of a people

    Both authors think that the Roma are a great example of a population that deserves to be considered a minority but wouldn't clearly be categorized as such under certain legal definitions. Neither of them are saying "the Roma are a perfect example of a people who aren't a nation", but in particular passage B is not saying that since passage B doesn't even discuss the concept of whether something can be considered a nation.

  4. Unsupported for Both3% picked this

    Both authors would prefer that the political issues involving the Roma be resolved on a case-by-case basis within each individual country

    Neither author discusses a solution in which we resolve Roma issues on a case by case basis rather than through international law. It would be just as supportable to think that both of these authors feel that the solution would be to amend international law in order to have a definition that can accommodate the Roma.

  5. Correct77% picked this

    Both authors consider the problems that the Roma face in relation to international law to

    Why this is right

    Passage A's 2nd paragraph begins by saying that the lack of a clear definition for minority / people / nation is particularly problematic for the Roma, so they qualify as an anomalous / special case. Anomalous / special = atypical The support from Passage B is very weak, so we're mainly picking this answer because it's better than the alternatives. The support from B is mainly a gist-y sense that the author of Passage B is writing the purpose of highlighting the Roma as a possibly-overlooked fringe case in which this definition doesn't seem to work. After explaining Capotorti's definition of a minority in the first sentence, the author of B says, this last element can be "problematic" If it were typically problematic, there's no reason the author would be so light in his wording. He's connoting the idea that sometimes this definition doesn't work out well. Thus, we infer that the author thinks of the Roma as an atypical (anomalous / special) case.

    Skill tested: Author's Attitude · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

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