Self-study
The following passage was written in the late 1980s.
P1
███ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ █ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███
Problem ·
Legal recognition and preservation of aboriginal rights
Partial solution ·
Constitutional protection of aboriginal rights
Preserves those rights already legally recognized
New problem ·
Inconsistent recognition and establishment of constitutional aboriginal rights by provincial (lower) courts
Provincial courts responsible to interpret Constitution
P2
██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████████████████ ███ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███
Define ·
Aboriginal rights
Ownership of land and resources, self-government, legal recognition of customs
Example ·
Of obstacles to recognition of rights by provincial courts
Provincial courts interpret the right to recognition of customs as applying only to customs held prior to colonization; but aboriginal societies lack legal documentation from that time
P3
████████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███
Revisit problem ·
Difficult to establish aboriginal rights in practice
Example ·
Of difficulty establishing rights in practice
Provincial court interpreted “ownership” of land in very limited sense
Author’s perspective ·
On land ownership ruling
Provincial court’s interpretation was too limited, outcome is regrettable and unsatisfactory
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
26.
Based on the information in ███ ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████
a
The court's ruling ████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███████ ██████████ ██████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██████
Not supported, because the ruling did not “directly contravene” the language of the reforms. The reforms did not define “ownership.” So the court’s ruling did not contradict any explicit definition of “ownership.” Although the author thinks the court should have interpreted “ownership” differently, this doesn’t imply that the court’s ruling contradicted the language of the reforms.
b
The Supreme Court ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████
Not supported, because courts are authorized to rule on the definition of property rights. The author never suggests that provincial courts are not allowed to make rulings on the definitions of words like “ownership.”
c
If there had ████ █████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███████
Not supported, because the documentary evidence issue discussed in P2 is not related to the 1984 case.
d
The unsatisfactory ruling ██ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ████████████ ██████████
Not supported, because we have no idea from the passage whether politicians and conservative interests influenced the court’s ruling. Don’t interpret “excessively conservative in its assessment of current law” as related to conservative politicians or interests.
e
The court correctly ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████
This is the most supported answer. The author thinks the court’s ruling was too conservative in its assessment of current law, so it’s fair to say that the court “misconstrued” the constitutional reform’s relation to existing law. In addition, there’s support for the claim that the court understood the intent of the constitutional reforms, because the court did at least attempt to grant “ownership” to the aboriginal group.