Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT4 S2 P1 Q2 Explanation

Coastal Rights

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

TopicsApplicationLaw

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

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. Until the mid-twentieth century, most nations favored application of broad open-seas freedoms and limited sovereign rights over coastal so limited, most nations did not establish rules for management or protection of their territorial waters.

Regardless of whether or not nations enforced regulations in their territorial waters, large ocean areas remained free of controls or restrictions. The citizens of all nations had the right to use these unrestricted ocean areas for any innocent purpose, including navigation and fishing. Except for controls over its own citizens, no nation conduct that applied on the “open seas,” there were few jurisdictional conflicts between nations.

The lack of standards is traceable to popular perceptions held before the middle of this century. By and large, marine pollution was not perceived as a significant problem, in part because the adverse effect of coastal activities on ocean ecosystems was not widely recognized, and pollution caused by human activities was generally technology that later allowed exploitation of other ocean resources, such as oil, did not yet exist.

To date, controlling pollution and regulating ocean resources have still not been comprehensively addressed by law, but international law—established through the customs and practices of nations—does not preclude such efforts. And two recent developments may actually lead to future international rules providing for ecosystem management. First, the establishment of extensive fishery zones, policies for broader regulation of human activities that affect ocean ecosystems will be adopted and implemented.

What this question is testing

Application

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
2.

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,

Answer choices

  1. Opposite1% picked this

    formally censured by an international organization for not properly regulating

    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.

  2. Opposite2% picked this

    called upon by other nations to establish rules to protect its

    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.

  3. Correct76% picked this

    able but not required to place legal limits on such

    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.

  4. Out of Scope: containment11% picked this

    allowed to resolve the problem at its own discretion providing it could contain the threat to

    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".

  5. Out of Scope: citizen requirement10% picked this

    permitted to hold the commercial offenders liable only if they were citizens of

    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".

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