Q19

[uhinberg]

I got this question right by POE, but I'm not at all happy with it. The support that the passage gives for the notion that the intent of the UNC was for "social group" to be applied to a wide variety of asylum seekers is from an analysis in P2 about the intentions of the drafters (kind of like legislative history). On the basis of that, is it really correct to say that the document itself suggests that the social-group category can be applied to a wide variety of asylum seekers? The document itself, i.e. the text of the document, suggests nothing of the sort.

[ohthatpatrick]

First and foremost, we should just reiterate that many correct answers on RC will leave you unsatisfied.

It's not a search for the answer with SUFFICIENT SUPPORT;
it's a search for the answer with THE MOST SUPPORT.

(Even when question stems aren't worded in a relativistic way ... same goes for LR .... you'll find some correct answers to Nec Assump that aren't strictly speaking necessary, but they're still the best answer available)

In an attempt to defend the passage, I think lines 28-32 get at the support for (D) and answer your qualm:

Yes, there is nothing explicit in the text about how social group is defined and how it should be used.

But, that was intentional.

The intentional omission of specific definitions and guidelines SUGGESTS that the term CAN be applied broadly.