Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT155 S3 P2 Q12 ExplanationILC's Draft Articles

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor OpinionLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

With rapidly expanding populations, growing industrial development, and dwindling water supplies on national and regional levels, water is fast replacing oil as the world’s most valuable resource. Meanwhile, the growing importance of water in geopolitical affairs has increased the potential for international conflict over water resources. Thus as development and other threats Nations’ International Law Commission (ILC) to develop a treaty structure for the uses of international watercourses.

The ILC’s Draft Articles on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses are an attempt to codify the customary principles of international water law as those principles are manifested in past legal decisions and currently accepted international practice. The Draft Articles are intended as a set of guidelines for the watercourse should be equitable and reasonable, and that nations should work for the protection of ecosystems.

Though the Draft Articles are a significant step forward in the formulation of legal principles for the protection and regulation of international rivers, they are inadequate because they do not provide satisfactory ways of dealing with possible future environmental changes. One significant environmental threat to the world’s rivers is the increase of from increased runoff due to snowmelt or, more importantly, from decreased precipitation in many regions.

Treaties that allocate fixed amounts of water to various countries based on current usage, as suggested by the Draft Articles, will not be flexible enough to respond to these large fluctuations in river flows. Once specific water rights are allocated along a river in accordance with the Draft Articles, nations would have climate changes, such as how reduced flows will be allocated among the countries sharing a river.

What this question is testing

Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
12.

The passage most strongly supports the inference that the author would agree with which one of

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct70% picked this

    It is possible to devise treaties that uphold the broad precepts embraced in the Draft Articles and that also permit countries to adapt

    Why this is right

    There is no one sentence that lets us derive this idea, but the answer choice is softly worded (it is possible) so it's pretty easy for an author to agree with it. The author thought Draft Articles was a significant step forward but fell short by not being "flexible enough to respond to .. large fluctuations in river flows" (beginning of last paragraph) In order to say, "It's great that you did X, but it would be even better if you had also done Y", you must be assuming that "it is possible to both do X and do Y." That's the spirit behind this answer choice. If the author is praising the Draft Articles but also saying they fell short in not providing responsive mechanisms for water fluctuations brought about by climate change. Towards the middle of the last paragraph, the author is saying "one way to circumvent this problem is to devise treaties that apportion water in more flexible ways". If the author is suggesting ways to improve upon the Draft Articles, then she would agree it's possible to keep the good stuff (broad precepts) from the Draft Articles but pair it up with the flexible water apportionment / contingency plans that would allow nations to adapt to changing water flows.

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

  2. Out of Scope: unilateral regulatory action4% picked this

    Efforts to manage and protect the world’s water resources should include unilateral regulatory action on the part of the ILC in cases where treaties

    Nothing in the passage ever sounds like the author is suggesting that the ILC take firm, solitary control of regulating situations not governed by treaties.

  3. Out of Scope13% picked this

    The Draft Articles need to be reformulated to take into account the effects of water usage on entire river systems instead of focusing on

    Out of Scope: entire systems Too Strong: need The author certainly has critiques of the Draft Articles, so it would be reasonable to say "the Draft Articles could benefit from reformulation". Saying they need to be reformulated is a little strong. More importantly, the passage never made a thing out of: entire individual segments river vs. that lie entirely systems within a nation's borders

  4. Out of Scope: many existing treaties3% picked this

    Many existing treaties governing water usage are cast in terms that permit nations to react flexibly to altered water availability patterns that

    Just because the author is suggesting X doesn't mean that he'd agree that many people are already doing X. Our author thinks treaties ought to be devised in a way that permits flexible reactions to changed water patterns, but there's no indication that he thinks that many treaties are already doing this.

  5. Out of Scope: generally favored11% picked this

    Countries that use the greatest quantities of water have generally favored treaties formulated in terms that allocate fixed quantities of water

    The author tells us that fixed water usage treaties will unjustly favor countries that use the most water, but there isn't any supporting language about whether those countries generally favor treaties formulated that way. It certainly seems plausible that they would, if they unjustly benefit from such arrangements, but there's no textual support for it.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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