I picked B, because the pargraph ends by saying "Not covered by the exemption, according to the FWS, were items "produced by sea otter pelts" which in my mind suggested that they DID specifically mention items made from pelts (abeit to clarify their exclusion from the exemption) - am I the only one who read it like that?
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.
The traditional handicrafts were explicitly mentioned in the legislation. But were handicrafts made from sea otter pelts?
By "specifically mentioned," I am interpreting that as something that you can point to in the legislation. There was language in the legislation that mentions the thing.
Are you thinking that if stuff made from pelts should have been included in our understanding of "traditional handicrafts," as used by the legislation, then that counts as being "specifically mentioned" in the legislation even if the words "sea otter pelts" doesn't appear in the legislation?
18 comments
I read A and chose A without reading the rest. Is that ok lol
I picked B, because the pargraph ends by saying "Not covered by the exemption, according to the FWS, were items "produced by sea otter pelts" which in my mind suggested that they DID specifically mention items made from pelts (abeit to clarify their exclusion from the exemption) - am I the only one who read it like that?
@QuincyMacShane Me too! I don't understand why they say B is unsupported. #help
I over analyzed these kind of questions. Have to start going with my instinct the first time. 😭
@AmandaWalker Agreed. I knew A was right but then fell for C!
i was thinking this was more implied question, but it kinda felt to me like it was lowk stated
putting the fact that I'm the 1% that chose D in my diversity statement for my apps
@Bayside lmao
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!
@akshayamadduru401 Not even joking exactly how I did it
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.
this has happened to me so many times
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.
The traditional handicrafts were explicitly mentioned in the legislation. But were handicrafts made from sea otter pelts?
By "specifically mentioned," I am interpreting that as something that you can point to in the legislation. There was language in the legislation that mentions the thing.
Are you thinking that if stuff made from pelts should have been included in our understanding of "traditional handicrafts," as used by the legislation, then that counts as being "specifically mentioned" in the legislation even if the words "sea otter pelts" doesn't appear in the legislation?