Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10  (Read 627 times)

Migrate

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« on: May 22, 2008, 09:42:00 PM »
Can someone pleez help me with this?

Claude: [blah blah] France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues...[blah]
Lorraine: [blah] Therefore, the introduction of such referenda would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

10. Which one of hte following, if true, provide the most support for Lorrain's conclusion?
Answer is C) Decision by refrendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries frinedly to France could not make reasonable decisoins based on a consistent french line.

I eliminated everyhting else, but I thought C was a weakener. Lorraine's conclusion is referenda would lead to froeign-policy disaster. C says referendum would make decisions upredictable..if friendly foreign countries could not make decisions based on CONSISTENT french line, wouldn't it be good that it makes decisions unpredictable (i.e. inconsistent)?


LSAT All Star

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
  • Keeping it simple
    • View Profile
    • All Star Test Prep
Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2008, 10:55:55 PM »
I don't think so.  If you were a country deciding whether to enter into treaties, trade agreements, whatever, with another country, and you were considering France, would the fact that the ultimate decision as to whether France would honor the agreements in the future was up to the whim of the voters leave you feeling good about dealing with them.  Or, would you deal with another country instead.  Perhaps a country that would not be so unpredictable.  All of a sudden, France would find itself without any international partners (trading or otherwise).  They would all turn elsewhere.  That would not be a good thing for France. 
Visit us at allstartestprep.com

Migrate

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2008, 10:07:06 PM »
Thanks for the response. But I still don't understand why that would be a good thing, if, as stated in the answer choice "france could not make reasonable decisions based on a consistent french line." If the answer choice just said, "Decision by refrendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable", that makes perfect sense. But the latter part means that unpredictable decisions are GOOD, since other countries could NOT make reasonable decisions based on consistent french line..

ssilver0210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
    • Silverman Bar Preparation
    • Email
Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2008, 10:37:49 PM »
I think you might be misreading this.  Loraine says that the introduction of referendum on foreign policy issues would lead to foreign policy disaster. We are looking for an answer choice which supports that assertion.

Choice C states that decisions by referendum on foreign policy issues would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and this unpredictable course of policy would cause countries friendly to France to be unable to make decisions based on a consistent French line.

If decisions by referendum make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and this unpredictability leads countries friendly to France to be unable to make decisions based on a consistent French line, then those countries friendly to France, may not be as friendly. (See reasons stated by LSAT All Star)

This could lead to foreign policy disaster, as originally stated by Loraine.
I provide tutoring both for the LSAT and the MBE at very reasonable rates.  I provide a free hour to all students to try out the tutoring.  Feel free to contact me at silvermanbarprep@gmail.com for tutoring inquires or to set up a free lesson. Visit my blog @ http://www.mbetutorial.blogspot.com

Migrate

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2008, 07:30:41 PM »
ahh! that makes sense. I misread it to mean that the latter half of the sentence was an independent premise. Just out of curiosity, how do I know when the latter half is derived from the first half and when they're not? it seems like it could have easily been a two independent premises.

ssilver0210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
    • Silverman Bar Preparation
    • Email
Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2008, 07:56:34 PM »
That really depends on the passage; I don't think there's a set rule, though perhaps someone can comment to correct me. I think it's just a matter of reading the passage, and using the context of the entire passage to determine whether you're dealing with an independent premise.

In this particular case, the second half of the sentence was a direct cause of the first. Countries friendly to France could not make decisions based on a consistent French line, because the referendum would make decisions unpredictable.

I provide tutoring both for the LSAT and the MBE at very reasonable rates.  I provide a free hour to all students to try out the tutoring.  Feel free to contact me at silvermanbarprep@gmail.com for tutoring inquires or to set up a free lesson. Visit my blog @ http://www.mbetutorial.blogspot.com