Reading Comprehension

PT5 · S4 · P1 · Q7 Government Contracts

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

Governments of developing countries occasionally enter into economic development agreements with foreign investors who provide capital and technological expertise that may not be readily available in such countries.

Topic

Are host governments in developing countries allowed to unilaterally change or terminate development contracts with foreign investors under "general principles of law"?

Framework

Challenge Position

Main Point

The claim that governments inherently have the power to unilaterally modify or terminate development contracts under "general principles of law" (based on French administrative contract theory) is flawed, since the power is not universally recognized and is much more limited than suggested. (The clearest encapsulation is at the end of P1: and supported in the following paragraphs.)

P1: Risks of Development Agreements and the Government "Inherent Power" Argument

Developing countries sometimes offer legal protections to foreign investors to make agreements more secure, but some argue their governments still have an inherent right to change or cancel contracts (based on French administrative law). The author says this claim is flawed for two reasons.

P2: Limits and Rules of the French Administrative Contract Theory

Not every French government contract is an "administrative contract." There are clear criteria for such contracts, and when the government changes terms, it must compensate the contractor—so it doesn't have unlimited power to just change financial aspects of the deal.

P3: French Law’s Limited Relevance & Practices in Other Countries

French administrative contract law isn't a universal principle—countries like the US and UK don’t use it; there, the government can only change or end contracts if that power is spelled out in the contract itself. The fact that contracts often include such clauses actually proves that this is not an automatic, inherent power.

7.

Which one of the following best states the author’s main conclusion in the passage?

  1. Providing that an international agreement

    Wrong Objection

    The author is arguing that, "there is NOT a general principle of law (originating in French law surrounding administrative contracts) that governments have the right to just nullify/amend contracts as they desire". This is saying that, "general principles of law do NOT provide a viable method of protecting contracts between governments and contractors.

    16% picked this

  2. French law regarding contracts is

    Wrong Emphasis Too Narrow

    While this fact is implied by the final paragraph, it's way too narrow to be the conclusion. This is a premise that helps to support the author's arguments that "there is NOT a general principle of law (originating in French law surrounding administrative contracts) that governments have the right to just nullify/amend contracts as they desire". Pointing out that the UK and US don't treat these contracts the way the French do helped the author to support the conclusion that there ISN'T some general principle of law that resembles the French one.

    1% picked this

  3. Contracts between governments and private

    Too Narrow

    This is a claim that may be true (although it's not clear that the word "most" could be derived from the passage). But it has nothing to do with "there is NOT a general principle of law (originating in French law surrounding administrative contracts) that governments have the right to just nullify/amend contracts as they desire".

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    An inherent power of a

    Why this is right

    This is our best match for "there is NOT a general principle of law (originating in French law surrounding administrative contracts) that governments have the right to just nullify/amend contracts as they desire".

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

    79% picked this

  5. Contracts between governments and private

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: only Wrong Emphasis: freedom to modify/nullify? The author merely told us that many developing countries put clauses in their contracts with investors that say that the contract will be governed by general principles of law. The passage never suggests anything as strong as "the only way to secure these contracts is to use general principles of law". Plus, this answer has nothing to do with the core topic, which is whether governments have the right to modify or nullify these contracts.

    4% picked this

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