Reading Comprehension

PT127 · S4 · P3 · Q21 Roma Minority Group

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

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 ties to that country and have no such ties to any other country, but are distinguished from the majority of the population by ethnicity, religion, or language.

Topic

The challenges in defining "minority" in international law, focusing on the Roma (Gypsies), and how various definitions impact their status.

Framework

Problem / Solution (with elements of Challenge Position)

Main Point

International law’s vague and sometimes exclusionary definitions of "national minority" make it especially hard for the Roma to be recognized and protected as a minority group—even though they clearly fit empirical criteria, the citizenship requirement unfairly excludes them. Most Valuable Sentences: - Passage A, P2: - Passage B, P1: - Passage B, P2:

P1 (Passage A): Introducing Definitions and Complications

This paragraph highlights that terms like "national minority," "people," and "nation" are badly defined, making it tough to apply them, especially since their definitions seem to shift based on context and may tie in power, land, or sovereignty.

P2 (Passage A): Spotlight on the Roma

The paragraph points out that these definition issues are especially tough for the Roma, since they don’t fit traditional molds: they lack a homeland, many aren't citizens anywhere due to a nomadic lifestyle, and yet they have strong internal, ethnic, and linguistic ties.

P1 (Passage B): Criticism of Citizenship Criterion

Here, Capotorti’s minority definition is described, emphasizing one legal element—citizenship—which is especially "problematic" for the Roma because it lets states arbitrarily deny them minority status, disregarding the practical aspects that clearly make them a minority.

21.

Which one of the following is a principle that can be most reasonably considered to underlie the reasoning in both of the passages?

A definition that is vaguely
Too Strong
Too Strong: cannot Unsupported Passage B: vague Only Passage A dealt with the vagueness of certain definitions. Passage B just lays out Capotorti's definition and argues that his stipulation that a minority be citizens of the state in question is troubling because it would exclude the Roma, even though they should clearly be considered a minority. But there's nothing "vague" about the idea of "citizens of the state in question". Whether or not someone is a registered citizen is a clear idea. Also, even for passage A, this answer would be too strong, since answer A isn't saying that a certain definition or law is intolerable, that it cannot serve as the basis for something. Passage A is only saying that these vague definitions end up being a huge pain in the butt for the Roma.
24% picked this
Correct
A minority group's not being
Why this is right
This is lovably weak, as it's just saying that "X can be detrimental to Y". Do both authors think that the fact that the Roma isn't officially recognized as a minority by the government can be bad for the Roma? Passage A says in the beginning of its 2nd paragraph that the lack of a definition (and thus the lack of official government recognition) presents difficulties to numerous minority groups and that this lack is particularly problematic for the Roma. Passage B's support is in its first paragraph, where it's saying "the inclusion of a requirement that you must be a citizen to be recognized as a minority group can be problematic, given the previous nomadic character of the Roma". The implication here is that the Roma should be considered a minority but wouldn't be under this definition. Passage B's final sentence of the 1st paragraph says "it's patently unfair" if the state is granted "the arbitrary right to decide if the Roma constitute a minority". Passage B never outright says that not-being-considered an official minority could be in some way detrimental to the Roma's interests. But this is implied by the fact that the author is using normative language like "the Roma should be considered a minority", "the part of Caportorti's definition that would exclude them is problematic", and that it's "patently unfair if governments can just arbitrarily decide whether to consider the Roma a minority. You generally don't attack something as unfair or argue that it should be otherwise unless you believe that there are detrimental aspects of the status quo.
Skill tested: Principle · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% picked this
Provisions in international law that
Unrelated to Their Concerns
Both passages were concerned with the idea that the Roma might not be officially considered a minority, even though they should be. The insinuation is that the Roma deserve to be protected by the provisions in international law that apply to minority groups. This answer is saying there shouldn't be any provision in international law that apply only to minority groups.
1% picked this
Governments should recognize the legal
Trap
Out of Scope Passage A: court systems Only Passage B brings up the idea of the Roma having their own legal and court systems. Also, both authors are mainly driving at the idea that the Roma should be recognized as a minority by governments, not that governments should recognize the Roma's legal systems.
1% picked this
A group that often moves
Bad Conclusion Match
The Roma are a group that often move back and forth across national boundaries, because they have a nomadic way of life. However, this answer makes it sound specifically like they toggle back and forth between two countries, which is not really anything we discussed. Also, this answer also makes it sound like the authors were arguing that "the Roma should be considered citizens of both countries". Neither author was arguing that the Roma should be considered citizens. They were both implying that the Roma should be considered a minority. The author of passage B wants Capotorti to get rid of his 4th criterion, that to be a minority you must be a citizen. This answer implies that passage B wants to remedy the situation by keeping Caportorti's 4-part definition and just making the Roma official citizens of any country they visit.
3% 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