Resolving Referential Phrases

Read the passage below regarding the methodology of historical inquiry. Match each designated referential phrase from the passage to the specific concept, argument, or entity it serves to encapsulate or refer to.

"The debate over the proper methodology for historical inquiry has long been polarized between narrative historians, who emphasize the causal efficacy of individual actors, and structuralists, such as those associated with the influential Annales school, who prioritize long-term demographic, environmental, and economic trends—often referred to as the longue durée. For structuralists, focusing narrowly on political events and the conscious decisions of elite figures creates an illusory sense of rapid historical transformation, which they often dismiss derisively as the 'history of events.' This superficial approach, they argue, fails entirely to capture the underlying geologic rhythms of human societies, which are shaped more by climate and agriculture than by monarchs and treaties.

Narrative historians counter this perspective by asserting that structuralism inevitably reduces human agency to mere epiphenomena, essentially treating individuals as helpless flotsam carried along by impersonal, overwhelmingly powerful socioeconomic currents. The latter critique suggests that without acknowledging the conscious, deliberate decisions of historical figures, history becomes a deterministic, sterile science rather than a vibrant humanistic discipline.

Furthermore, some modern methodological synthesizers argue that this rigid dichotomy is fundamentally flawed and ultimately counterproductive. They propose a middle ground where structural constraints clearly define the broad boundaries of possible actions, but robust individual agency dictates the specific, contingent path taken within those parameters. In doing so, these synthesizers aim to seamlessly reconcile the subjective experience and localized freedom of historical actors with the objective, enduring conditions that constrain them, arguing that true historical understanding must integrate both frameworks."

Read the following passage about paleontology. Match each referential phrase from the text to the specific concept or event it refers to.

'Early paleontologists often struggled to correctly assemble dinosaur skeletons, leading to several famous errors. The most notable mistake involved the Apatosaurus and the Brontosaurus, where researchers placed the skull of a Camarasaurus on an Apatosaurus body. This anatomical conflation created a new dinosaur species that never actually existed. To prevent similar errors, modern paleontologists rely heavily on comparative anatomy and biomechanical modeling. The latter technique uses computer simulations to test how bones could have fit together and moved. Despite these advancements, some historical naming errors persist in popular culture. Such enduring misconceptions highlight the powerful influence of early museum exhibits on the public imagination.'

Read the passage below regarding customary international law. Then, answer the question by filling in the blank with the exact concept from the text.

The traditional doctrine of customary international law insists that rules binding upon states emerge only from a strict dual requirement: consistent state practice (usus) and a psychological belief that such practice is legally obligatory (opinio juris). For decades, international tribunals meticulously examined centuries of historical archives, diplomatic correspondence, and military protocols to establish this empirical foundation before recognizing a new binding norm. However, the unprecedented proliferation of multilateral treaties in the latter half of the twentieth century prompted a significant methodological shift.

Modern human rights tribunals, driven by the urgency to establish universal protections in a rapidly changing world, frequently bypass exhaustive historical surveys of state behavior. Instead, they increasingly rely on the texts of widely ratified conventions and declarations by international organizations to deduce a nascent legal consensus. Critics of this modern approach argue that elevating aspirational treaty text over concrete state action fundamentally undermines the democratic legitimacy of international law. This modern tendency, they warn, effectively imposes obligations on states based on rhetorical commitments rather than demonstrated sovereign consent.

Yet, defenders maintain that in an era of rapid global interconnectedness, waiting for uniform historical practice is unfeasible. Such resistance, they argue, fails to acknowledge that in the contemporary legal architecture, formal multilateral declarations constitute a modern form of state practice in their own right.

Question:
Based on the logical structure of the first paragraph, the referential phrase "this empirical foundation" serves as a substitute for which specific requirement of customary international law mentioned earlier in the text?

In the philosophy of music, formalists argue that the aesthetic value of a musical composition resides entirely in its structural properties—its harmony, rhythm, melody, and thematic development. Conversely, expressionists maintain that music's primary function is the communication of human emotion. A particularly robust iteration of the expressionist framework, famously championed by the theorist Charles Leonhard, goes beyond the mere claim that music evokes feeling in the listener. Leonhard contends that a musical work actually embodies the genuine, lived emotional state of its composer at the exact time of creation. According to this view, when an audience experiences a melancholic symphony, they are directly perceiving and communing with the composer's own melancholy.

However, subsequent critics have identified a significant vulnerability in Leonhard's biographical account of musical meaning. It is entirely possible, and widely documented in historical archives, for a composer to write a joyous, triumphant fanfare while suffering from profound personal grief, or to compose a tragic, mournful requiem while experiencing a period of great personal happiness and stability. The documented capacity of a skilled composer to deliberately manipulate established musical conventions—such as major and minor keys, tempo, and instrumentation—to produce a specific affective state in the listener, wholly independent of their own lived emotional experience, poses a severe challenge to Leonhard's central thesis. Indeed, this incongruity suggests that musical meaning is heavily reliant on a system of established cultural codes and structural expectations rather than serving as a transparent, unmediated window into a composer's psychological condition.

The phrase "this incongruity" in the final sentence of the passage refers to which one of the following?

The passage below discusses competing theories of customary international law. For each of the designated referential phrases used by the author, identify the specific concept, action, or relationship that serves as its functional antecedent within the text.

The traditional framework of customary international law (CIL) rests upon the dual pillars of consistent state practice and *opinio juris*—the belief that such practice is legally mandated. Historically, jurists posited that sovereign states are bound only by rules to which they have consented, a principle that ostensibly shields domestic authority from external overreach. However, the modern proliferation of multilateral treaties and declarations by international bodies has challenged this voluntarist conception. Some scholars argue that these declarations, even when technically nonbinding, crystallize into binding CIL much more rapidly than traditional state practice would allow. This acceleration—often termed 'instant custom'—bypasses the protracted historical accretion of consistent state actions.

Critics of instant custom contend that equating General Assembly resolutions with actual state practice effectively dilutes the foundational consent requirement. They warn that such a methodological shift allows a numerical majority of states to dictate normative frameworks to dissenters. This imposition, they argue, not only infringes upon state sovereignty but also undermines the democratic legitimacy of international law, which traditionally relied on explicit ratification processes by individual nations.

In defense of modern CIL formation, proponents maintain that the rapid articulation of norms is essential to address urgent global crises, which cannot wait for decades of uniform state practice. They posit that collective declarations in international fora represent a more immediate expression of the global conscience. The tension between the traditional and modern approaches reveals a deeper jurisprudential schism regarding the fundamental purpose of international law: whether it serves primarily to regulate the interactions of independent sovereigns or to advance a substantive global public order. Resolving this dialectic requires a nuanced approach that reconciles the imperative for agile norm creation with the enduring necessity of sovereign consent.