Law School Discussion

Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10

Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« on: May 22, 2008, 07:42:00 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)?


Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2008, 08:07:06 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..

Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2008, 08:37:49 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.

Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2008, 05:30:41 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.

Re: Preptest 39 Section 2 Question 10
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2008, 05:56:34 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.