Reading Comprehension

PT154 · S3 · P4 · Q25 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

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.

25.

It can be inferred that both the author and the scholars mentioned in the passage would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

Until extensive empirical studies determine
Too Strong
We can't really support this strongly worded notion that, "Until X happens, Y will be largely ineffective" from either party. The author, in particular, thinks that treaties and negotiations are our better hope of effectively holding nations to appropriate standards of environmental conduct, so this sounds too pessimistic for her.
4% picked this
Judicial decisions that are grounded
Unsupported for Scholars
This answer sounds more like where these two parties diverge. It sounds like something the author would say as a way of objecting to what the scholars are currently doing. The scholars believe in the effectiveness of court decisions grounded in customary international law. The author thinks that we're more likely to be effective by going after negotiations and treaties, and treating these professed principles as ideals rather than norms.
17% picked this
If it is difficult to
Unsupported for Scholars
This answer sounds more like where these two parties diverge. It sounds like something the author would say as a way of objecting to what the scholars are currently doing. The scholars have been treating precautionary principle as a norm, even when nations don't seem to be acting in accord with it. The author (and this answer) say that's the wrong way to handle it.
14% picked this
Correct
If it can be shown
Why this is right
This is very similar to (C), so it would probably provoke us to go find what wording there is on this topic. Do we ever define a ground-rule for when a principle can / can't be considered a norm of customary international law? Yes, the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph: In debating whether a given principle should be classified as a norm of customary law ... scholars generally accept an established criterion: Principles are norms, only if X applies. (By contrapositive, if X doesn't apply, a principle cannot be considered a norm) If nations do not customarily then the abide by the principles in principle should actual practice rather than → not be classified merely affirming them as as a norm of desirable standards custom int'l law The scholars are supposed to agree with this because it says "scholars generally accept" this rule. And the author seemingly agrees with it, because he keeps yelling at these scholars as the passage continues that they are treating principles as norms when they shouldn't be (since nations aren't actually obeying these principles in practice).
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
57% picked this
Until a large percentage of
Too Strong
We can't really support this strongly worded notion that, "Until X happens, there will be no reliable basis for Y." Neither the author nor the scholars ever discussed a crucial threshold of "large percentage of nations enacting treaties embodying certain norms" as a requirement for having any reliable basis for deciding disputes.
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