Reading Comprehension

PT145 · S3 · P1 · Q2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

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

Start practicing free

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), approved by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, was the first international treaty to expressly affirm universal respect for human rights.

Topic

The origins, drafting, and impact of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy

Main Point

The passage describes the UDHR as a groundbreaking and influential international document, notable for articulating universal human rights, though limited by its lack of legal enforceability. Most Valuable Sentence: (Last paragraph)

P1: Need for International Human Rights Standard / Creation of UDHR

Before 1948, there wasn't a truly international human rights standard, so the UDHR was created as the first explicit global affirmation of human rights. Some smaller nations and NGOs wanted even stronger language and real obligations for countries to cooperate and act on human rights, but these calls were not fully adopted—instead, the UDHR was drafted.

P2: Drafting Process and Contents of the UDHR

The UN Commission on Human Rights was tasked in 1946 with producing the UDHR, kicking off a complex drafting process with heated debates among diverse delegates. The finally approved declaration highlighted essential rights and freedoms for all people, listing out fundamental human rights like the right to work, leisure, and education.

P3: Limitations and Lasting Importance of the UDHR

The passage acknowledges that, despite its significance, the UDHR is not legally binding. However, it set an important standard and eventually inspired legally binding conventions, earning its place as an international touchstone for human rights principles and aspirational goals.

The author most probably quotes directly from both the UN Charter (third sentence of the first paragraph) and the proposal mentioned in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph for which one of the following reasons?

to contrast the different definitions
Wrong Role: contrasting definitions
We don't know how either document defines "human rights", from this 1st paragraph, so contrasting the two different definitions can't be the author's purpose.
2% picked this
Correct
to compare the strength of
Why this is right
Comparing "the strength of language" can be matched up with a lot of the text from the 1st paragraph. We anticipated something like, "the author tells us about the UN Charter to explain that there had been a previous attempt to safeguard human rights, but it didn't have enough teeth behind it, so that's what motivated the creation of the UDHR". The UDHR "expressly affirms universal respect for human rights", while the UN Charter "encourages respect for human rights". UN members weren't happy with the Charter because they said "the language was not strong enough / it didn't go far enough to guarantee rights". They "lobbied vigorously to strengthen the human rights provisions" and proposed that member states be required / obligated to act on human rights issues. It still seems weird to say that the author's purpose in quoting the Charter and quoting the Proposal was to compare strength of language in each, but the author is telling the backstory that led up to the UDHR, and the crux of that backstory is "Are we being forceful enough in guaranteeing human rights"? There's a progression from the Charter's weak-sauce "we encourage respect" to the Proposal's obligatory "member states are required to co-operate with the promotion of human rights" to the eventual language of the UDHR.
Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
to identify a bureaucratic vocabulary
Out of Scope: common vocabulary
The only common vocabulary we might find here is "human rights", but the author's main point in the 1st paragraph isn't saying something like, "Check it out -- both of these documents use this same bureaucratic term, human rights." It doesn't even really seem fair to call that "bureaucratic vocabulary", which implies something more like technical jargon specific to a certain bureaucracy.
1% picked this
to highlight what the author
Too Strong: most important
There's no text to support that the author thinks that either quoted excerpt is the most important point in each document. The author's overall goal isn't to spotlight a certain line she likes. She's trying to tell the story of what led up to the UDHD, and the idea is that the UN Charter took a swing at safeguarding human rights and people weren't happy with how weak it was.
11% picked this
to call attention to a
Out of Scope: prose styles
The author is never discussing the different styles of prose. It's hard to even call something like a charter or a proposal a work of prose ("prose" normally means a literary work that isn't poetic in nature, like an essay or story or novel). Comparing prose styles would be like talking about how one write likes to use very long sentences with lots of descriptive clauses and flowery vocabulary, while another author keeps it simple and casual.
8% 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