"After hearing testimony establishing that Alaska Natives had made many uses of sea otters before the occupation of the territory by Russia in the late 1700s, the court reconsidered what constituted a traditional item under the statute. The court now held that the FWS's regulations were based on a "strained interpretation" of the word "traditional," and that the reference to "living memory" imposed an excessively restrictive time frame."
If we say that the court re-considered, (after hearing the testimony of Alaskan Natives made uses of sea otters before the occupation of territory by Russia in the late 1700s) and subsequently held the belief that the FWS's regulations were based on a "strained definition" of the words "traditional", given the context of the passage, how is it that we can say "well the court didn't cite to what the Natives said about tradition", therefore (A) is wrong? The court, after hearing the testimony from Alaskan Natives based on how THEY interpreted tradition (as well as their practices), defined the regulations as strained, because FWS didn't (seemingly) consider how Alaska Natives have historically understood tradition.
okay chat i need help. I keep getting it right and then last minute changing my answer to the wrong thing. Like I know the right answer and I keep changing it. what is wrong with me.
took me a min and 1 second to get it, I was juggling between C and D but chose C becuase stained imo meant too constaint, not broad enough which is similar to what C is saying with inconsistant whereas D was saying that the word traditonal wasnt used in the right context with what is means which is different from being too constained
what is the difference between"fail to use the term to describe what it should have been described" and ""use the term to describe what they should not have been described as such"
This question gave me some trouble because I was assigning parts of the passage incorrectly to answer choices A and C. I unknowingly made assumptions that, even in hindsight, seemed reasonable. So, I need to be more careful in just reading the words as they are.
A - "the interpretation ignored the ways in which Alaska Natives have historically understood the term 'traditional'"
I selected A because I honed in on the sentence, "After hearing testimony... the court reconsidered what constituted a traditional item under the statute" (lines 41-45). Connecting this to the answer choice, I thought this was saying that the FWS did not consider how Alaska Natives had many uses of sea otters before the 1700s.
While Alaska Natives did share testimonies of sea otter use, testimony of traditional practices is not the same as sharing a group's historical understanding of the term "traditional." Additionally, the passage does not state what FWS considered or ignored when defining terms.
C - "the interpretation was inconsistent with what the term 'traditional' is normally understood to mean"
Kevin explains that this answer choice refers to the second part of the last paragraph, particularly the line about defying common sense (line 54).
Rather than focusing on that part of the passage, I was focused on the second paragraph. In the second paragraph, the author describes one of the most prevalent ideas associated with "tradition" (i.e., long-standing practice, passage of time continuity, and regularity of a practice).
I thought that by calling these "prevalent ideas," the author was indicating that this is what people normally understood "traditional" meant. It seems I made an assumption that "one of the most prevalent ideas" is the same as "normally understood."
Because I made this assumption, I thought that the answer choice was saying that the FWS' interpretation was not consistent with a traditional practice being long-standing, continuous, and regular. Based on this misinterpretation, I thought that FWS interpretation actually was consistent with that definition, because the use of sea otter pelts was not continuous or regular.
Advice for how far outside of the 'highlighted' word in the stem we should be looking, IF we g back to the text?
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
13 comments
"After hearing testimony establishing that Alaska Natives had made many uses of sea otters before the occupation of the territory by Russia in the late 1700s, the court reconsidered what constituted a traditional item under the statute. The court now held that the FWS's regulations were based on a "strained interpretation" of the word "traditional," and that the reference to "living memory" imposed an excessively restrictive time frame."
If we say that the court re-considered, (after hearing the testimony of Alaskan Natives made uses of sea otters before the occupation of territory by Russia in the late 1700s) and subsequently held the belief that the FWS's regulations were based on a "strained definition" of the words "traditional", given the context of the passage, how is it that we can say "well the court didn't cite to what the Natives said about tradition", therefore (A) is wrong? The court, after hearing the testimony from Alaskan Natives based on how THEY interpreted tradition (as well as their practices), defined the regulations as strained, because FWS didn't (seemingly) consider how Alaska Natives have historically understood tradition.
okay chat i need help. I keep getting it right and then last minute changing my answer to the wrong thing. Like I know the right answer and I keep changing it. what is wrong with me.
took me a min and 1 second to get it, I was juggling between C and D but chose C becuase stained imo meant too constaint, not broad enough which is similar to what C is saying with inconsistant whereas D was saying that the word traditonal wasnt used in the right context with what is means which is different from being too constained
I wouldnt have gotten this without using POE
D
so confused
what is the difference between"fail to use the term to describe what it should have been described" and ""use the term to describe what they should not have been described as such"
This was a tough one
c being the correct answer defies common sense....
This question gave me some trouble because I was assigning parts of the passage incorrectly to answer choices A and C. I unknowingly made assumptions that, even in hindsight, seemed reasonable. So, I need to be more careful in just reading the words as they are.
A - "the interpretation ignored the ways in which Alaska Natives have historically understood the term 'traditional'"
I selected A because I honed in on the sentence, "After hearing testimony... the court reconsidered what constituted a traditional item under the statute" (lines 41-45). Connecting this to the answer choice, I thought this was saying that the FWS did not consider how Alaska Natives had many uses of sea otters before the 1700s.
While Alaska Natives did share testimonies of sea otter use, testimony of traditional practices is not the same as sharing a group's historical understanding of the term "traditional." Additionally, the passage does not state what FWS considered or ignored when defining terms.
C - "the interpretation was inconsistent with what the term 'traditional' is normally understood to mean"
Kevin explains that this answer choice refers to the second part of the last paragraph, particularly the line about defying common sense (line 54).
Rather than focusing on that part of the passage, I was focused on the second paragraph. In the second paragraph, the author describes one of the most prevalent ideas associated with "tradition" (i.e., long-standing practice, passage of time continuity, and regularity of a practice).
I thought that by calling these "prevalent ideas," the author was indicating that this is what people normally understood "traditional" meant. It seems I made an assumption that "one of the most prevalent ideas" is the same as "normally understood."
Because I made this assumption, I thought that the answer choice was saying that the FWS' interpretation was not consistent with a traditional practice being long-standing, continuous, and regular. Based on this misinterpretation, I thought that FWS interpretation actually was consistent with that definition, because the use of sea otter pelts was not continuous or regular.
Advice for how far outside of the 'highlighted' word in the stem we should be looking, IF we g back to the text?