"No small countries have permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council."
# 1 PR: SC - > notPS PS - > notSC
"No countries in the southern hemisphere have permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council."
# 2 PR: SH - > notPS PS - > notSH
"Each of five countries with a permanent seat on the Security Council is in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts and a greater role for the United Nations in moderating regional disputes."
"Some countries that are in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts are firmly against increased spending on refugees by the United Nations."
# 4 QS: FIIP-some-notISR notISR-some-FIIP
Since this is a "must be true" question, then our correct answer must be 100% supported by the passage. Let's head into the answer choices.
(A) INCORRECT: Some small countries do not want the United Nations to increase its spending on refugees.
QS: SC-some-notISR notISR-some-SC
All we know about SC is that they are notPS. NotPS is the necessary condition in PR#3. Therefore, it tells us nothing else.
(B) INCORRECT: Some countries in the southern hemisphere are not in favor of increased international peacekeeping efforts.
QS: SH-some-notFIIP notFIIP-some-SH
This is the same problem as answer choice (A). All we know about SH is notPS.
(C) INCORRECT: Some countries that have permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council are against increased spending on refugees by the United Nations.
QS: PS-some-notISR notISR-some-PS
Answer choice (C) is attempting to combine PR#3 and QS#4. Their shared variable is "FIIP." However, "FIIP" is the necessary condition of PR#3, and therefore it will not lead to any more information.
(D) INCORRECT: Some small countries are in favor of a greater role for the United Nations in moderating regional disputes.
QS: SC-some-GRD GRD-some-SC
All we know about the variable "SC" is notPS. We have the same issue as (A) and (B)
(E) CORRECT: Some countries that are in favor of a greater role for the United Nations in moderating regional disputes are not located in the southern hemisphere.
QS: GRD-some-notSH notSH-some-GRD
Here we have an interesting quantifier rule coming into play. Remember if A - > B, and assuming the existence of at least one A, we can conclude B-some-A.
We can take PR#3 PS - > GRD (remember that "&" is a conjunction, which means we can separate PS - > GRD & FIIP to become PS - >GRD and PS - > FIIP) and make it into a quantity statement: GRD-some-PS, because we are told that there is at least one PS (actually we are told that there are 5). Then we combine it with PR#2: GRD-some-PS - >notSH. Therefore, (E) is 100% supported by the passage.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any more questions!
MehranJuly 21, 2013
Video explanation is now live as well. Hope it helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
niki-dowlatshahiFebruary 16, 2020
Can you summarize how you would do this - summary, not an elaborate explanation- where is the link the main
