I am so silly. The MMPA of 1972 continued the prohibition and introduced an exemption. So there could not have been an exemption before 1972, and Alaska Natives could not have hunted sea otters between 1920 and 1972. But I misread answer choice A and thought, "That's obviously wrong. While Alaska Natives were prohibited from hunting sea otters, they did have an exemption."
a- at first i crossed it out cuz i was like... this is too much of a jump to conclusions
b- heck yea, all my indicator words... but then i looked at all the other options,
c-talks about russia, but too specific so i rule it out
d- eco fact.. not mentioned in the reading or anything alluding to the levels of the seals, so cross
e-how do we know this? was it proved, or stated?
ok with POE we are left with 2 options:
a- well it says that the seal treaty prohibited the hunting of seals, and i would assume because it didn't specify the traditional exemptions, even Alaskan natives were not allowed, that means the MMPA ALLOWED the use of tradition
b-it says in this MMPA treaty it was stated? using my low res map, i look to the text and it never mentions that so.... cross it out
Does anyone else too hastily eliminate an answer that happens to be correct, yourself to choose between a bunch of bad answers? I eliminated A too quickly and ended up choosing C through a process of elimination even though I didn't like it because I put so much trust in my process of elimination that I didn't even consider the possibility that A could be right.
I chose B. The otter pelts were mentioned in that exemption because the courts specifically addressed why they weren't included. I feel like the explanation is assuming that "mentioned" means "included" but I chose B because these handicrafts were explicitly called out in this legislation. The explanation doesn't satisfy my confusion here.
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!
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.
9 comments
I am so silly. The MMPA of 1972 continued the prohibition and introduced an exemption. So there could not have been an exemption before 1972, and Alaska Natives could not have hunted sea otters between 1920 and 1972. But I misread answer choice A and thought, "That's obviously wrong. While Alaska Natives were prohibited from hunting sea otters, they did have an exemption."
Frustrating when there's such heavy emphasis on definitional usage of words in some situations but then not in ones like this.
The stem says "suggested" but its not suggested or implied that sea otter hunting was prohibited -- it is explicitly stated.
Given the other choices, this was what I determined the right answer to be still, but it ended up taking me way too long in the estimated timing.
3 seconds over rip
how i went about answering this:
a- at first i crossed it out cuz i was like... this is too much of a jump to conclusions
b- heck yea, all my indicator words... but then i looked at all the other options,
c-talks about russia, but too specific so i rule it out
d- eco fact.. not mentioned in the reading or anything alluding to the levels of the seals, so cross
e-how do we know this? was it proved, or stated?
ok with POE we are left with 2 options:
a- well it says that the seal treaty prohibited the hunting of seals, and i would assume because it didn't specify the traditional exemptions, even Alaskan natives were not allowed, that means the MMPA ALLOWED the use of tradition
b-it says in this MMPA treaty it was stated? using my low res map, i look to the text and it never mentions that so.... cross it out
SO A is the answer!
I'm overthinking this.
Does anyone else too hastily eliminate an answer that happens to be correct, yourself to choose between a bunch of bad answers? I eliminated A too quickly and ended up choosing C through a process of elimination even though I didn't like it because I put so much trust in my process of elimination that I didn't even consider the possibility that A could be right.
I chose B. The otter pelts were mentioned in that exemption because the courts specifically addressed why they weren't included. I feel like the explanation is assuming that "mentioned" means "included" but I chose B because these handicrafts were explicitly called out in this legislation. The explanation doesn't satisfy my confusion here.