Roma Minority Group

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong23% picked this

   A definition that is vaguely formulated cannot serve as the basis for the provisions contained in a

   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.

   23%
2. B

   Correct72% picked this

   A minority group's not being officially recognized as such by the government that has jurisdiction over it can be

   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%
3. C

   Unrelated to Their Concerns1% picked this

   Provisions in international law that apply only to minority groups should not

   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%
4. D

   Trap1% picked this

   Governments should recognize the legal and court systems used by minority populations

   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%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   A group that often moves back and forth across a boundary between two countries can be legitimately considered

   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%