Reading Comprehension

PT4 · S2 · P1 · Q2 Coastal 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

The extent of a nation’s power over its coastal ecosystems and the natural resources in its coastal waters has been defined by two international law doctrines: freedom of the seas and adjacent state sovereignty.

Topic

The evolution of international law regarding nations' control over coastal waters and ocean resources, especially in relation to ecosystem management and pollution control.

Framework

Old / New

Main Point

International law once emphasized only very limited national control and few regulations over coastal waters, but recent changes reflect growing opportunities and need for more comprehensive management and standards to protect ocean resources and ecosystems. **Most Valuable Sentence:** The last paragraph, especially:

P1: Historical Legal Doctrines and Limited Sovereignty

This paragraph lays out the two main legal ideas shaping control over the seas: open-seas freedoms and very limited state control over coastal waters. Most countries only ruled a narrow band (about 3 miles) of water off their coasts and didn't really regulate or manage those waters.

P2: Freedom of the Seas and Few Restrictions

Here we learn that almost all of the ocean was basically unregulated, open to everyone for things like fishing and sailing. No country had real authority over what happened in most of these waters, and there weren't many disputes since there were hardly any rules.

P3: Reasons for Lack of Regulation

The author explains that people didn't see marine pollution or overfishing as real problems before the mid-20th century, partly due to limited technology and awareness, and partly because unrestricted fishing was a cherished right. Regulations seemed unnecessary at the time.

According to the international law doctrines applicable before the mid-twentieth century, if commercial activity within a particular nation’s territorial waters threatened all marine life in those waters, the nation would have been

formally censured by an international
Opposite
We're dealing with an era when there wasn't any international pressure or leverage to be good stewards of the ocean. Within your territorial waters, you could do what you wanted, and in international waters, you could do what you wanted "for any innocent purpose". We're going off text that says within territorial waters, a nation has "the authority, but not the responsibility" to regulate what's going on. So a nation can't be criticized for not properly regulating marine activities, when we're told that they have no responsibility to regulate.
1% picked this
called upon by other nations
Opposite
Again, we're dealing with the era when there wasn't any international effort to collectively co-manage the ocean. Within your territorial waters, you could do what you wanted, and in international waters, you could do what you wanted "for any innocent purpose". This wasn't an era when nations called each other to conspire about how to protect the ocean.
2% picked this
Correct
able but not required to
Why this is right
We're going off text that says within territorial waters, a nation has "the authority, but not the responsibility" to regulate what's going on. They have the authority to regulate = they are able to regulate They don't have the responsibility to regulate = they are not required to place legal limits on what's going on within their waters.
Skill tested: Application · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
76% picked this
allowed to resolve the problem
Out of Scope: containment
The text that says within territorial waters, a nation has "the authority, but not the responsibility" to regulate what's going on. We don't have any text that suggests that this standard is limited by whether or not "the threat could be contained to their territorial waters".
12% picked this
permitted to hold the commercial
Out of Scope: citizen requirement
The text that says within territorial waters, a nation has "the authority, but not the responsibility" to regulate what's going on. We don't have any text that suggests that this standard is limited by whether or not "the offenders are citizens of that nation".
10% 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