LSAT Explanation PT 33, S1, Q14: After the United Nations Security Council

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy presented above? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Paradox question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage and summarize any unclear or confusing parts. The passage tells us that the United Nations Security Council authorized military intervention in a country to halt civil strife. However, the parliament of one UN member nation condemned its own prime minister for promising to commit military personnel to the action. Despite this, a parliamentary leader claimed that the overwhelming vote for the resolution did not mean that the parliament opposed the intervention; in fact, most members of parliament supported the UN plan. This presents a paradox: if the parliament supports the UN plan, why would they condemn their prime minister for supporting the same plan?

The question type of this problem is a Paradox question, which asks us to resolve the apparent discrepancy presented in the passage. Let's evaluate each answer choice:

a) The UN Security Council cannot legally commit the military of a member nation to armed intervention in other countries.

- This answer choice doesn't help resolve the paradox. Even if the UN Security Council cannot legally commit the military of a member nation, it doesn't explain why the parliament would condemn its prime minister for supporting the intervention while still supporting the UN plan themselves.

b) In the parliamentary leader's nation, it is the constitutional prerogative of the parliament, not of the prime minister, to initiate foreign military action.

- This answer choice resolves the paradox. It explains that the parliament supports the UN plan, but they condemned their prime minister because he overstepped his authority by promising to commit military personnel to the action. The parliament, not the prime minister, should have the power to initiate foreign military action.

c) The parliament would be responsible for providing the funding necessary in order to contribute military personnel to the UN intervention.

- This answer choice doesn't resolve the paradox. It only tells us that the parliament would be responsible for funding the military personnel. It doesn't explain why they would condemn their prime minister for supporting the intervention while still supporting the UN plan themselves.

d) The public would not support the military action unless it was known that the parliament supported the action.

- This answer choice is irrelevant to the paradox. It only tells us that public support depends on the parliament's support for the action. It doesn't explain why the parliament would condemn their prime minister for supporting the intervention while still supporting the UN plan themselves.

e) Members of the parliament traditionally are more closely attuned to public sentiment, especially with regard to military action, than are prime ministers.

- This answer choice doesn't resolve the paradox. It only tells us that members of the parliament are more attuned to public sentiment than prime ministers. It doesn't explain why the parliament would condemn their prime minister for supporting the intervention while still supporting the UN plan themselves.

Based on our analysis, the correct answer is B. It resolves the paradox by explaining that the parliament supports the UN plan but condemned their prime minister for overstepping his authority and initiating foreign military action, which is the parliament's constitutional prerogative.