When I saw the question was on the 1991 case, I used the search to find "1991" and highlighted "1991," "After hearing testimony," "the court reconsidered," and "The court now held." These phrases seemed to show the flow of how their decision was made, which is exactly what the question was asking.
I knew A was wrong because they were widening, not narrowing, a term, and the term was not "long-standing."
I knew B was wrong because the interpretation question was not over "within living memory."
I knew C was wrong because they were not adhering to the FWS regulations.
I knew D was wrong because they weren't making a new interpretation on the original treaty.
That left E, through process of elimination, and E was very easy to see as correct just based on my highlights from earlier. "After hearing testimony" (testimony establishing)--The testimony surrounded the historical facts around the many uses of sea otters before occupation by the Russians in the 1700s.
If I were to guess what the answer would be by just reading the question stem before reading through the answers, I never would have anticipated E to be the right answer. But process of elimination and really watching the "flow" of how the decision was made made it an easy answer choice even though it seems like an odd choice.
POE -- I knew it wasn't C or D. A and B had the right words or phrases in the wrong places which just left E. I was gonna strike that but then I went back to the passage and realized there WAS testimony and that did change things. Hence, text support for E, so E is the right answer.
Obviously barring that E was not the answer it is, could D have merit if this was an inference question? idk what's wrong with me that i totally looked past E
I feel like even if E did not exist, the 1910 law did not have the exemption for Native Alaskan tradition, that was the MMPA in 1972. D could have been correct if it were referencing the correct piece of legislation AND E did not exist.
@cbrianne1570 I don't think so, the court never referenced the Fur Seal Treaty in its decision and only explicitly discussed the FWS regulations in its decision. D might be right if it said "a new interpretation of the FWS regulations".
#feedback maybe I’m misinterpreting but when the explanation says “The court thought the FWS’s interpretation of “traditional” defied common sense. Even though the natives hadn’t hunted sea otters within living memory, that was only because they were prevented from doing so. These circumstances should render sea otter hunting nontraditional.” Doesn’t that last sentence have a typo?
I totally misinterpreted "based on" in this question. I believe I was thinking of its colloquial usage, referring to the root cause/ foundation of something. I was initially thinking AC A) because of this misunderstanding, even though I knew the passage referred to the narrow interpretation of "tradition" rather than "long-standing".
If letter D discussed a new interpretation of the regulations that followed the 1972 law, could it be correct? I still think letter E would be the right one, because the decision would have to go through the testimonies before it could come to a new interpretation. But I'm not sure.
That's a tough one! I agree with your inclination that answer choice E would still be correct. My take is that the court's decision is the new interpretation of the 1972 law and the FWS regulations, and the court decision/new interpretation would still need to be based off of something (like the testimonies or common sense understanding of "traditional").
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.
26 comments
I misread the question
When I saw the question was on the 1991 case, I used the search to find "1991" and highlighted "1991," "After hearing testimony," "the court reconsidered," and "The court now held." These phrases seemed to show the flow of how their decision was made, which is exactly what the question was asking.
I knew A was wrong because they were widening, not narrowing, a term, and the term was not "long-standing."
I knew B was wrong because the interpretation question was not over "within living memory."
I knew C was wrong because they were not adhering to the FWS regulations.
I knew D was wrong because they weren't making a new interpretation on the original treaty.
That left E, through process of elimination, and E was very easy to see as correct just based on my highlights from earlier. "After hearing testimony" (testimony establishing)--The testimony surrounded the historical facts around the many uses of sea otters before occupation by the Russians in the 1700s.
If I were to guess what the answer would be by just reading the question stem before reading through the answers, I never would have anticipated E to be the right answer. But process of elimination and really watching the "flow" of how the decision was made made it an easy answer choice even though it seems like an odd choice.
@pamelajkok this was a helpful explanation thank you!
I completely misread the question lol
how is this a level 4 question
me after going 1/3
POE -- I knew it wasn't C or D. A and B had the right words or phrases in the wrong places which just left E. I was gonna strike that but then I went back to the passage and realized there WAS testimony and that did change things. Hence, text support for E, so E is the right answer.
this passage has been killing me
i just fell for B so hard literally hook line sinker and the entire fishing pole lmfao
Dude I didn't even consider E
this one got me, the question wording bit me in the ass
This one got me i fear
Obviously barring that E was not the answer it is, could D have merit if this was an inference question? idk what's wrong with me that i totally looked past E
I feel like even if E did not exist, the 1910 law did not have the exemption for Native Alaskan tradition, that was the MMPA in 1972. D could have been correct if it were referencing the correct piece of legislation AND E did not exist.
@cbrianne1570 I don't think so, the court never referenced the Fur Seal Treaty in its decision and only explicitly discussed the FWS regulations in its decision. D might be right if it said "a new interpretation of the FWS regulations".
Tricky one
Details, details, details
I hate this passage
#feedback maybe I’m misinterpreting but when the explanation says “The court thought the FWS’s interpretation of “traditional” defied common sense. Even though the natives hadn’t hunted sea otters within living memory, that was only because they were prevented from doing so. These circumstances should render sea otter hunting nontraditional.” Doesn’t that last sentence have a typo?
Thanks, fixed!
I totally misinterpreted "based on" in this question. I believe I was thinking of its colloquial usage, referring to the root cause/ foundation of something. I was initially thinking AC A) because of this misunderstanding, even though I knew the passage referred to the narrow interpretation of "tradition" rather than "long-standing".
3 wrong in a row. Oof
Me toooo! I only got two correct for this passage - mainly because I MISREAD the questions!
If letter D discussed a new interpretation of the regulations that followed the 1972 law, could it be correct? I still think letter E would be the right one, because the decision would have to go through the testimonies before it could come to a new interpretation. But I'm not sure.
That's a tough one! I agree with your inclination that answer choice E would still be correct. My take is that the court's decision is the new interpretation of the 1972 law and the FWS regulations, and the court decision/new interpretation would still need to be based off of something (like the testimonies or common sense understanding of "traditional").