The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

Question

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist act has focused attention on the problems caused by the political offense exception to extradition. Extradition is the process by which one country returns an accused or convicted person found within its borders to another country for trial or punishment. Under the political offense exception, the requested state may, if it considers the crime to be a “political offense,” deny extradition to the requesting state.

Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments. First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition, to expedite the return of political offenders, and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. Second, countries began to contend that they had no legal or moral duty to extradite offenders without specific agreements creating such obligations. As extradition laws subsequently developed through international treaties, the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.

There is no international consensus, however, as to what constitutes a political offense. For analytical purposes illegal political conduct has traditionally been divided into two categories. “Pure” political offenses are acts perpetrated directly against the government, such as treason and espionage. These crimes are generally recognized as non extraditable, even if not expressly excluded from extradition by the applicable treaty. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.

Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.   1 
 C 
 1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to

(A) define a set of terms
(B) outline a new approach
(C) describe a current problem
(D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information

2 
 C 
 2. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?

(A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated
(B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts
(C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies
(D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes
(E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders

3 
 A 
 3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?

(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition

4 
 B 
 4. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to

(A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts
(B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly
(C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses
(D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses
(E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses

5 
 D 
 5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?

(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
(D) The exception needs rethinking.
(E) The exception is too limited.

6 
 B 
 6. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between

(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses

(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable

(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense

(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition

(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

7 
 A 
 7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception

(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

8 
 D 
 8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.

(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.

(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.

(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.

(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.

fluke · Accepted Answer

Para1: Introduction of political offense exception in extradition treaty.
Para2: Inception of the political offense exception.
Para3: Categorizing offenses as political and common; political offense is further categorized into pure, relative. Mentions the complexity involved in separating few political offense from common crimes. 
Para4: Suggestion for political exception clause amendment.

1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to
 (A) define a set of terms.   
 (B) outline a new approach   
 (C) describe a current problem.   
 (D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information

2. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?
 (A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated.   The principle started at the time of monarchies but exception started when government took over.  
 (B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts   Terrorist not mentioned in para2. 
 (C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies . True.
 (D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes . Not mentioned.
 (E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders.  This is true about monarchies and not for governments.

3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?
 (A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense . Because this distinction decides whether to extradite the offender and the most probable answer.
 (B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes . Less likely because pure political offenses are clearly defined.
 (C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses . Both pure and relative political offenses will prohibit extradition. 
 (D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage  It is same as C.
 (E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition  No other exception is discussed.

4. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to
 (A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts  
Possible. "and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability"
 (B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly 
The  only  rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. This is highly likely.
 (C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses  Not mentioned.
 (D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses Not mentioned. 
 (E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses Not mentioned.

5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?
(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
 (D) The exception needs rethinking.  No doubt.
(E) The exception is too limited.

6. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between
(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses
 (B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable 
(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense
(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition
(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
 (A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use 
 (B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated.  Not mentioned.
 (C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism . Not really useful against terrorism. 
 (D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established Never is an exaggeration. 
 (E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
 (E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses. Guess.

will provide the OA after discussion

garimavyas · Answer

well , here is the OA , 
CCABDBAD.

i will come to this passage after posting a few more passages.

newton9 · Answer

P1: Introduces political offense exception
P2: Origins of PO exception
P3: Explains different PO's -- pure, common, relative. 
P4: balance the competing needs and what needs to be done.

1) Author describes current problem of PO exception and issue with relative vs pure offenses.

Ans  C

2) Look in P2

It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments

Ans  C

3) Author considers problematic the common crimes that are inseperable from political offenses. "However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable"

Ans  A

4) Primary purpose is: "The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country."

Ans  B

5) Inference: The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.

Ans  D

6) Ans  D

7) When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.

Ans  A

8) End of paragraph 3.

Ans  D

subhashghosh · Answer

My take :

1 - C

2 - C

3 - A

4 - B

5 - D

6 - B

7 - A

8 - D

pierpcosta93 · Answer

I do not clearly understand why 4 is A. Because from the passage I think that it says about that the "relative"crimes   there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense . So I believe that the problem concerns "relative" crimes, which lay in the middle between "pure" crimes and common crimes.
HELP

anje29 · Answer

CCABDBAD OMG all correct :twisted:

, even after so much disturbance

anje29 · Answer

Hi,
I think you are talking about 3rd ques

3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?
(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition

In 2nd passage it is clearly mentioned that 
  “Pure” political offenses recognized as non extraditable. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally non extraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense .

I you read these lines it clearly mentions where the confusion lies i.e. between common crimes and relative political offenses. Whereas "pure" political offenses are explicilty mentioned as non extraditable.

mayurg · Answer

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist act has focused attention on the problems caused by the political offense exception to extradition. Extradition is the process by which one country returns an accused or convicted person found within its borders to another country for trial or punishment. Under the political offense exception, the requested state may, if it considers the crime to be a “political offense,” deny extradition to the requesting state.
Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments. First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition, to expedite the return of political offenders, and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. Second, countries began to contend that they had no legal or moral duty to extradite offenders without specific agreements creating such obligations. As extradition laws subsequently developed through international treaties, the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.
There is no international consensus, however, as to what constitutes a political offense. For analytical purposes illegal political conduct has traditionally been divided into two categories. “Pure” political offenses are acts perpetrated directly against the government, such as treason and espionage. These crimes are generally recognized as nonextraditable, even if not expressly excluded from extradition by the applicable treaty. In contrast, common crimes, such as murder, assault, and robbery, are generally extraditable. However, there are some common crimes that are so inseparable from a political act that the entire offense is regarded as political. These crimes, which are called “relative” political offenses, are generally nonextraditable. Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception. Most terrorists claim that their acts do fall under this protection.
Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country. The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.   . In the passage, the author primarily seeks to
(A) define a set of terms
(B) outline a new approach
(C) describe a current problem
(D) expose an illegal practice
(E) present historical information

. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition?
(A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated
(B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts
(C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies
(D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes
(E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders

.Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic?
(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition

. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to
(A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts
(B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly
(C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses
(D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses
(E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses

. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?
(A) The exception is very unpopular.
(B) The exception is probably illegal.
(C) The exception is used too little.
(D) The exception needs rethinking.
(E) The exception is too limited.

. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between
(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses
(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable
(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense
(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition
(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offence exception (lines 62-66)?
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.
(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses

broall · Answer

Merged post. Reformatted questions and added OAs. Enjoy

pikolo2510 · Answer

HEy  GMATNinja   GMATNinja Two

Can you explain the below 2 questions?

7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception

(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissidents

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.

(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.

(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.

(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.

(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.

CC:  devanshu92

guptagt89 · Answer

need explanation for last one

kunalsinghNS · Answer

Lost in question no. 8

can someone explain that part ?

GMATNinja · Answer

The author believes that "the only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country." The author also states that "international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes." From this statement we can infer that, in cases of international terrorism, one could always argue that the political offense exception could be applied. According to the author, that would "offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability." In other words, if terrorist acts can always be considered political, then terrorists can easily avoid extradition and criminal liability.

The intent of the political offense exception was to protect people from unfair treatment, not to protect criminals such as terrorists. Thus, the passage suggests that the author would agree that the political offense exception has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use, so choice (A) is the best answer.

Refer to the following portion:

The author's point is that it is hard to draw the line between a common crime (extraditable) and a relative political offense (non extraditable). Therefore, according to the author, "the international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception." But if the political offense exception were rarely used to protect persons accused of relative political offenses, then the problematic situation described the author would not be such a concern.

In other words, the author is concerned that the political offense exception unjustly protects those who commit relative political offenses. But if use of the political offense exception to protect those who commit relative political offenses has sharply decreased, then the author's concern would be less relevant.

Thus, choice (D) would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation to find an alternative to the political offense exception.

jawele · Answer

1. In the passage, the author primarily seeks to
(A) define a set of terms two terms are indeed defined: pure and relative political offences, but, if anything, those are only details in the third paragraph
(B) outline a new approach if anything, the author advocates for new approach to separate what really constitutes a political offence and what does not
(C) describe a current problem correct - international terrorist being protected under political offence provision
(D) expose an illegal practice if anything, the practice is exposed but nothing is done to tackle it
(E) present historical information some such information can be found in the second paragraph, but again - this does not describe the whole idea of the passage

2. According to the passage, when did countries begin to except political offenders from extradition? relevant text: Protection of political offenses is a recent addition to the ancient practice of extradition. It is the result of two fundamental changes that occurred as European monarchies were replaced by representative governments.
(A) when the principle of extraditing accused or convicted persons originated this conflicts with the information in the passage
(B) when some nations began refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts First, these governments began to reject what had been a primary intent of extradition <...> and instead sought to protect dissidents fleeing despotic regimes. - so it started when governments started to protect ostensibly accused or convicted people from unfair treatment
(C) when representative governments began to replace European monarchies correct
(D) when countries began to refuse to extradite persons accused or convicted of common crimes the same reason as in B
(E) when governments began to use extradition to expedite the return of political offenders the same reason as in B

3. Given the discussion in the passage, which one of the following distinctions does the author consider particularly problematic? relevant text: Despite the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful. When it comes to real cases, there is no agreement about what transforms a common crime into a political offense and about whether terrorist acts fall within the protection of the exception.
(A) between common crimes and “relative” political offense
(B) between “pure” political offenses and common crimes conflates to distinct categories into one
(C) between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses "the widespread acceptance of these analytic constructs" - implies that the two are more or less clear
(D) between terrorist acts and acts of espionage the former falls under relative political offence and the latter falls under direct political offence - so those two actually are not problematic as stated in the comment about choice C
(E) between the political offense exception and other exceptions to extradition other exceptions aren't brought into the discussion

4. According to the author, the primary purpose of the political offense exception should be to relevant text: The only rational and attainable objective of the exception is to protect the requested person against unfair treatment by the requesting country.
(A) ensure that terrorists are tried for their acts the author does believe that, but the legal tool's goal is to protect, not to try people
(B) ensure that individuals accused of political crimes are not treated unfairly correct
(C) distinguish between political and nonpolitical offenses it should set clearly the criteria under which the principle could be used, but it's not its purpose to lay down the distingshion
(D) limit extradition to those accused of “pure” political offenses political offence deals with exceptions to extradition
(E) limit extradition to those accused of “relative” political offenses political offence deals with exceptions to extradition

5. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements about the political offense exception?
(A) The exception is very unpopular. quite the contrary - the principle has begun to be used in cases in which it's questionable whether it's been used correctly
(B) The exception is probably illegal. <...> the political offense exception gradually became an accepted principle among Western nations.
(C) The exception is used too little. as the author calls for a clearer definition and guidelines as to what constitutes political offence and how to apply it, it seems that it hasn't been used too little
(D) The exception needs rethinking. It is time to reexamine the political offense exception <...> - correct
(E) The exception is too limited. actually the principle might become to broad

6. When referring to a balance between “the competing needs of political freedom and international public order” (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between relevant text: It is time to reexamine the political offense exception, as international terrorism eradicates the critical distinctions between political offenses and nonpolitical crimes. <...> The international community needs to find an alternative to the political offense exception that would protect the rights of requested persons and yet not offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.
(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses true, but that's only one side of the balance - defending those who may be unfairly treated in the requesting countries
(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable correct
(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense if anything, the author wants to entirely clear up the confusion over what is a political offence
(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition not discussed in that way
(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses just a mash of words that match parts of the text

7. The author would most likely agree that the political offense exception
(A) has, in some cases, been stretched beyond intended use refers to some terrorists' protection by exploiting the political offence provision
(B) has been used too infrequently to be evaluated contrary the whole idea
(C) has been a modestly useful weapon again terrorism not sure about this one, but there's not enough information to suggest that
(D) has never met the objective for which it was originally established unlikely that it has never met the goal. Why would then governments accepted the concept as a standard?
(E) has been of more academic than practical value to political dissident this idea refers to the two definitions - <...> analytic constructs, the distinctions are more academic than meaningful.

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)? relevant text: The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist act has focused attention on the problems caused by the political offense exception to extradition. - so the central idea is that the concept of political offence has been abused, resulting in criminals avoiding justice
(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts. this would strengthen
(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes. those are 'pure' crimes
(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses. 'pure' crimes are out of scope
(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses. correct
(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses. that would only reinforce the need to lay down clear guidelines

Harsh2111s · Answer

VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja 
Option C seems more generic here and correct.
Author does want to maintain political offence exception to extradition and Also, he want to clear up the confusion over what is a political offense.
How to eliminate this option ?

doeadeer · Answer

Hi, for Q6, why is option E incorrect?  
 GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma   egmat

When referring to a balance between ???the competing needs of political freedom and international public order??? (lines 54-55) the author means that nations must strike a balance between

(A) allowing persons to protest political injustice and preventing them from committing political offenses

(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable

(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense

(D) allowing nations to establish their own extradition policies and establishing an agreed-upon international approach to extradition

(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of  pure  political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of  relative  political offenses

KarishmaB · Answer

Harsh2111s ,  doeadeer :

In paragraph 3, the author talks about pure political offences, regular crime and relative political offences (which are unclear). He discusses how governments may take a stand on extradition based on what kind of offence it is and what the terrorists feel. The whole passage till now is about what are extraditable vs non extraditable offences.

Then comes:
"Nations of the world must now balance the competing needs of political freedom and international public order. "

Why are political offences non extraditable? Because nations want to support political freedom.
Why are crimes extraditable? Because nations want to maintain international order.

"needs of political freedom" - freedom of a person to speak/act against an unjust regime
"international public order" - offenders should be legally liable

The nations need to balance these competing needs. 
Hence (B) is correct.
(B) protecting the rights of persons requested for extradition and holding terrorists criminally liable

Let's look at (C) and (E):

(C) maintaining the political offense exception to extradition and clearing up the confusion over what is a political offense

The need of international public order is not 'the need of clearing up confusion over definition of political offence'. It is the need of maintaining order and bringing criminals to justice.

(E) protecting from extradition persons accused of “pure” political offenses and ensuring the trial of persons accused of “relative” political offenses

Nations need to balance the competing needs. What are these needs? Protecting pure political offenders is not the need. Protecting the political freedom of people is the need. The action could be protecting pure political offenders. Also, their need is not putting to trial relative political offenders. First of all, there is too much confusion about 'relative'. Secondly, the need of international order means the need to maintain order.

shuklaji · Answer

hey VeritasKarishma , Can you please explain question Q8 ? Thanks......

KarishmaB · Answer

8. Which one of the following, if true, would give the author most cause to reconsider her recommendation regarding the political offense exception (lines 62-66)?

(A) More nations started refusing to extradite persons accused or convicted of terrorist acts.

(B) More nations started extraditing persons accused or convicted of treason, espionage, and other similar crimes.

(C) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception protect persons accused of each of the various types of “pure” political offenses.

(D) The nations of the world sharply decreased their use of the political offense exception to protect persons accused of each of the various types of “relative” political offenses.

(E) The nations of the world started to disagree over the analytical distinction between “pure” political offenses and “relative” political offenses.

What is the author's recommendation regarding the political offense exception?
- That an alternative needs to be found.

Why?
- Relative crimes which are considered political offer terrorists immunity from criminal liability.

What will make her reconsider her recommendation to scrap "political offense exception"?
If it is not used to offer immunity to terrorists, then she may not have a problem with it.

This is what (D) says. If nations stopped using it for non extradition in case of relative crimes, she may not have a problem with "political offence exception". She does say that the govts should "protect the rights of requested persons (last line)" so she seems to be ok with not extraditing pure political offence persons.

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The refusal of some countries to extradite persons accused

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards