Reading Comprehension

PT145 · S3 · P1 · Q6 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.

Suppose that a group of independent journalists has uncovered evidence of human rights abuses being perpetrated by a security agency of a UN member state upon a group of political dissidents. Which one of the following approaches to the situation would most likely be advocated by present-day delegates who share the views of the delegates and representatives mentioned in the third sentence of the first paragraph?

Correct
The UN General Assembly authenticates
Why this is right
This is supported by language at the end of the 1st paragraph. Authenticating the evidence doesn't connect to anything in the passage, but it's just common sense that when a controversial piece of evidence is uncovered, we try to cross-reference it some way to verify its legitimacy. The idea of "insisting upon prompt remedial action on the part of the offending member state" reinforces the idea that these delegates thought there was an obligation for member states to act on human rights issues.
Skill tested: Application · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
The UN General Assembly stipulates
Too Weak
The delegates we're being asked about want strong UN responses to human rights abuses. They want the UN to go far in its efforts to guarantee basic human rights. This answer sounds too much like nothing might ever get done. If you wait around for unanimity, you'll probably never get it, so you'll never implement an action that responds to these human rights abuses. In particular, why would the offending member state ever vote to incriminate / police itself?
4% picked this
The UN issues a report
Too Weak
The delegates we're being asked about want strong UN responses to human rights abuses. They want the UN to go far in its efforts to guarantee basic human rights. This answer sounds like a weaker reaction than the correct answer. "Censure" means to "harshly criticize, in a formal way". So they would have written a report and then asked everyone to vote on whether or not they too criticized these actions. But all of this stuff has a very hollow, nonbinding feel to it. Since these delegates crave strong action, they'd prefer the UN "insist on a remedy" than to just publish a report that says, "just so you know ... a bunch of us voted to say we disapprove."
13% picked this
The situation is regarded by
Opposite
The delegates we're being asked about want strong UN responses to human rights abuses. They want the UN to go far in its efforts to guarantee basic human rights. This answer is way too laissez faire. For the UN to just shrug its shoulder and go, "well - what are you gonna do?" would be the opposite of what these delegates want.
3% picked this
The situation is investigated further
Too Weak
The delegates we're being asked about what strong UN responses to human rights abuses. They want the UN to go far in its efforts to guarantee basic human rights. This answer sounds like some other body will conduct some research and hopefully disclose their findings to the public. This answer doesn't even involve the UN doing anything.
4% 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