October 2012 LSAT Section 3 Question 26

Suppose the Parliament in England makes a commitment to become a permanent member of a multinational body. It can be ...

Jazzy on September 15 at 09:51PM

Why is B wrong?

Hi: I thought when the Parliament joined a multinational body, the membership would put some constraints on the Parliament's legal power, instead of letting it be an authoritarian regime--which is hinted in the last paragraph. Therefore, more creditors would find the Parliament more credible to honor its debts. Is my rationale too far from common sense here?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on September 17 at 04:08PM

I think you might be making two leaps here. The far more important leap is that we don't know that joining a multilateral organization makes parliament more credible. In fact, some organizations might make it less credible if, say, other members of such an organization has recently repudiated their own debts.

I think the other leap is assuming that the body would necessarily place limits on parliament. While the rules would put some limits in, parliament as sovereign could simply choose to ignore those rules, and, as happened in Brexit, withdraw from that body.