Reading Comprehension

PT145 · S3 · P1 · Q5 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.

5.

The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

  1. The human rights language contained

    Too Strong: almost wholly ineffectual

    This is way too condemnatory. The author is largely praiseworthy of this document. The author will agree to some minor disappointments, but this answer makes it seem like the document is fatally flawed and almost worthless. The author also never stresses "ambiguous language" in that final paragraph.

    7% picked this

  2. The weaknesses of the Universal

    Opposite

    The author would say that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. You can judge the main impression someone wants to give you by judging the idea they leave you with. People who teach Critical Race Theory: Although America's race relations have greatly improved, racism is still a problem. People who oppose Critical Race Theory: Although racism is still a problem, America's race relations have greatly improved. This author starts the 4th paragraph with her resignation that this document had no punch behind it because it was non-binding. But then she pivots with "Nevertheless" back to positive and leaves us with that taste in our mouth: clearly deserves recognition as a standard-setting piece of work

    3% picked this

  3. It was relatively easy for

    Opposite

    The 2nd paragraph suggests that it was very difficult to reach a consensus: - an elaborate 8-stage drafting process - went through almost every level of the UN hierarchy - the articles were debated at each stage

    1% picked this

  4. The drafters of the Universal

    Out of Scope: omitted rights

    At no point in the passage does the author bring up any specific rights that the UDHR omitted to include. The author's only qualm was that the document didn't have any binding legal enforcement to give it teeth.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    The Universal Declaration of Human

    Why this is right

    Appealingly, this answer reinforces something from the last paragraph: - it's progressive, but has weaknesses, mainly the fact that its non-binding (it suggests how countries should act but countries aren't forced to abide by it) - it facilitated later stuff that is binding - it should be commended for setting an international standard or protected rights all nations should aspire to have What do we mean by "its staunchest (most passionate) proponents"? The end of the 1st paragraph talks about a group who thought that Article 1 of the UN Charter "didn't go far enough to guarantee basic human rights. This group lobbied vigorously" for the human rights provisions to be something that member states would be required to act on. The decision to commission the UDHR was borne out of that desire to make the human rights provisions of the 1945 UN Charter into something binding, something that its member states would have to follow. The author likes this document, but is disappointed that it doesn't have legally binding status. She knows that this document was created because some staunch defenders of human rights were mad that the old Charter didn't have binding human rights provisions. So it would be truer to those people's goals / desires if this UDHR had binding legal status.

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

    85% 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