Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardDistinguishing Main Point from Subsidiary Points

Consider the following passage concerning international legal theory.

Traditional accounts of customary international law (CIL) posit a dual requirement for the crystallisation of a binding norm: consistent, widespread state practice combined with opinio juris—the conviction that such practice is legally mandated. Historically, this evolution was notoriously glacial, reliant upon the slow accretion of diplomatic correspondence and state actions. However, the proliferation of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions has prompted some contemporary legal scholars to advocate for the concept of "instant custom." These scholars argue that overwhelmingly supported resolutions can bypass the temporal requirement of state practice, effectively serving as legislative acts that bind the international community.

This modern proposition, while attractive in its capacity to rapidly address emerging global crises, fundamentally misapprehends the structural limitations of the UN system. The UN Charter explicitly restricts the General Assembly to a recommendatory role. Therefore, while near-unanimous resolutions can certainly accelerate the articulation of emerging norms, they cannot independently substitute for material state practice. Rather than acting as binding legislation, these resolutions are best understood as highly persuasive, yet subsidiary, evidence of nascent opinio juris. A resolution may reflect what states believe the law ought to be, but absent congruent state behavior, it cannot dictate what the law is.

This distinction was vividly illustrated in the recent Texaco v. Libya arbitration, where the tribunal confronted a UNGA resolution purporting to establish absolute sovereignty over natural resources. Despite the resolution's broad support among developing nations, the sole arbitrator rejected its status as binding CIL, noting that the vigorous objections and contrary practices of capital-exporting states fatally undermined any claim of universal custom. The tribunal correctly recognized that a resolution's text, no matter how emphatic, collapses as a source of law when contradicted by the empirical reality of state conduct.

Analyze the structural components of the author's argument. Pair each of the following textual excerpts with its correct rhetorical function within the passage as a whole.

  • "Traditional accounts of customary international law (CIL) posit a dual requirement for the crystallisation of a binding norm..."Establishing the accepted theoretical paradigm that serves as the baseline for subsequent debate
  • "...some contemporary legal scholars... argue that overwhelmingly supported resolutions can bypass the temporal requirement of state practice..."Articulating a competing theoretical proposition that the author's primary argument is designed to refute
  • "...while near-unanimous resolutions can certainly accelerate the articulation of emerging norms, they cannot independently substitute for material state practice."Expressing the author's overarching conclusion regarding the legal weight of a modern institutional phenomenon
  • "This distinction was vividly illustrated in the recent Texaco v. Libya arbitration, where the tribunal confronted a UNGA resolution..."Providing a concrete, empirical application to substantiate the author's abstract legal distinction

Answer

The traditional accounts establish the baseline paradigm; the contemporary scholars articulate the competing proposition; the limitation of near-unanimous resolutions is the central thesis; and the Texaco arbitration provides the concrete empirical application.
The correct pairings accurately reflect the logical progression of an LSAT Reading Comprehension argument. The author begins with contextual background, introduces a counter-theory, asserts their own nuanced central thesis against that theory, and finally marshals subsidiary evidence (a specific legal case) to validate their thesis. Distinguishing between the author's core claim (the thesis) and the elements used to support or frame it (background, counter-premises, evidence) is the fundamental skill assessed by this matching structure.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the overall structure of the passage to distinguish the main point from background and supporting evidence.
The passage moves from traditional background to a flawed modern theory, states the author's corrective thesis, and concludes with an illustrative legal case.
Understanding the macro-structure is essential for accurately assigning rhetorical roles to specific excerpts.
2
Evaluate the rhetorical role of the first excerpt regarding 'traditional accounts'.
It matches 'Establishing the accepted theoretical paradigm' because it sets the historical foundation (state practice + opinio juris) that the rest of the text builds upon or challenges.
Opening paragraphs in LSAT passages frequently provide the conventional wisdom or historical context.
3
Evaluate the rhetorical role of the second excerpt regarding 'some contemporary legal scholars'.
It matches 'Articulating a competing theoretical proposition' because it introduces the concept of 'instant custom', which the author immediately counters in the next paragraph.
Identifying the view the author disagrees with is critical to isolating the author's actual main point.
4
Evaluate the rhetorical role of the third excerpt regarding 'near-unanimous resolutions'.
It matches 'Expressing the author's overarching conclusion' because it represents the author's nuanced thesis: resolutions have value but cannot replace state practice.
The main point synthesizes the author's perspective, distinct from both the purely traditional view and the flawed modern proposition.
5
Evaluate the rhetorical role of the fourth excerpt regarding 'Texaco v. Libya'.
It matches 'Providing a concrete, empirical application' because it is a specific, real-world example used to prove the author's theoretical point.
Specific examples, case studies, and arbitrations function as subsidiary evidence in legal reasoning passages.

Key Concept

Distinguishing Main Point from Subsidiary Points
Rate this question

Topics

Distinguishing Main Point from Subsidiary Points

More questions from this topic