Reading Comprehension

PT154 · S3 · P4 · Q24 International Environmental Conflicts

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

In the absence of international statutes prohibiting nations from causing each other environmental damage, scholars of international environmental law typically focus on trying to identify and clarify norms of “customary international law”: that body of commonly accepted—but not formalized—legal principles that is manifest in the behavior of nations toward one another.

Topic

The limits of using customary international law to address international environmental issues

Framework

Challenge Position (the author critiques the idea that certain environmental "norms" are truly customary international law)

Main Point

Many supposed norms of customary international environmental law, such as preventing transboundary harm and following the precautionary principle, are not reflected in what nations actually do, so scholars are misguided in relying on "customary international law" to resolve international environmental cases. Instead, more attention should be given to how these principles influence negotiations and treaties. The Most Valuable Sentence: The final paragraph, especially:

P1: The Role of Customary International Law in Environmental Issues

This paragraph explains that, since there aren't formal international statutes against causing cross-border environmental damage, scholars look to "customary international law"—widely accepted but unofficial rules. Two key principles are often cited: preventing transboundary harm and following the precautionary principle to avoid risking environmental damage to other nations.

P2: The Flaw in Calling These Principles Customary Law

Here, the author says that for a principle to count as customary international law, nations must actually follow it, not just praise it. But in reality, many nations don't actually act on these principles—they just say they support them while continuing to allow pollution.

P3: The Reality of "Norms"—More Ideals Than Laws

The passage highlights that though nations and scholars say they focus on what countries really do, in practice they care more about what nations claim to support. These environmental "norms" are more about shared ideals and rhetoric than actual legal practice, and shouldn't really be seen as customary law.

24.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship between the final paragraph and the first paragraph?

  1. Correct

    In the final paragraph, the

    Why this is right

    This looks tasty. In the 3rd paragraph, we can definitely match all these moments: the author opposes a scholarly approach "While scholars claim to focus on what nations do, their debates are almost always about what nations say. In reality, do and say don't match. Hence, scholars are wrong to classify these principles as norms ... those scholars are misdirecting their efforts." proposes an alternative approach "Environmental 'norms' don't belong to customary international law. They might be better characterized as Y. In light of this fact, scholars seeking X are misdirecting their efforts. ... it would be more productive for scholars to do Y." argues for that proposal The last two sentences of the passage: "Specifically, attention should be directed toward how A can contribute to B and C. This approach would promote progress towards things that could effectively hold nations to appropriate conduct".

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

    73% picked this

  2. In the final paragraph, the

    Principles vs. Approach

    This is a pretty tight facsimile of (A), other than the switch from "critiquing an approach and proposing/defending an alternate approach" to "critiquing two principles and proposing/defending some alternate principles". The moment where the author is critical in the 3rd paragraph sounds like this: Scholars are misdirecting their efforts. The moment where the author proposes an alternatives sounds like this: It would be more productive for scholars to study such disputes from perspective Y. The criticism and suggested alternative are about "where to direct scholarly efforts / from what perspective scholars should study such disputes". That sounds more like we're talking about "a bad approach / an alternative approach" than like we're talking about "bad principles / alternative principles".

    10% picked this

  3. In the final paragraph, the

    Opposite

    The author rejects the original practice discussed in the 1st paragraph, saying that the current practice is "misdirecting their efforts / it would be more productive for scholars to do X instead".

    2% picked this

  4. In the final paragraph, the

    Bad Second Half

    Yes, the author does criticize scholars for focusing too much on trying to win good decisions for international environmental cases based on "customary international law". But the alternative the author suggests is that they focus on how most environmental disputes are resolved via negotiations or treaties, not via the court system. So, not only does the author not suggest that scholars focus on the legal status of the two early principles, he is actually saying "stop worrying about legality ... this stuff isn't being decided in courts ... how can you use these principles during negotiations / treaties in order to get the good environmental outcomes you're seeking?"

    9% picked this

  5. In the final paragraph, the

    Opposite

    The author doesn't argue for a way of carrying out the scholars' proposal. The author rejects the scholars' practice, saying that the current practice is "misdirecting their efforts / it would be more productive for scholars to do X instead".

    7% 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