Reading Comprehension

PT4 · S2 · P1 · Q3 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.

The author suggests that, before the mid-twentieth century, most nations’ actions with respect to territorial and international waters indicated that

Correct
managing ecosystems in either territorial
Why this is right
Based on what we know: most nations didn't bother making rules for their waters, since it was a small territory they had authority over and they weren't really worried about marine pollution. it's a pretty safe takeaway to think that they weren't making managing marine ecosystems a high priority. If it was a high priority, they would have gone ahead and made rules to regulate those waters, since they had the authority to do so. Since they didn't, it suggests that managing marine ecosystems wasn't high on their list of things to do.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% picked this
unlimited resources in international waters
Unsupported
The passage attributes the lack of territorial rules to the small size of the territorial zone (and possibly also to the lack of concern for the marine ecology), but never says it was because of the any abundance of resources elsewhere. No causal link from international resources to disinterest in territorial waters appears.
2% picked this
nations considered it their responsibility
Contradicted
We know that these nations being asked about didn't establish rules for protecting their territorial waters, So it sounds like they didn't consider it their responsibility. The passage even says nations had "the authority, but not the responsibility," to regulate territorial waters.
8% picked this
a nation’s authority over its
Contradicted
The idea that "authority ends at territorial lines" isn't the same as saying, "They thought the amount of territory they had authority over was too small to care about". And the second paragraph says that in international waters, nations retained "controls over its own citizens" even where no other authority applied, so authority over citizens continued past territorial lines.
8% picked this
although nations could extend their
Contradicted
The passage doesn't make it seem like they had the option to extend their territorial dominion beyond three smiles. The passage says a nation "had the right to include within its territorial dominion only a very narrow band," generally three miles. Since they couldn't extend their territorial dominion, most chose not to establish protective rules.
9% 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