@Kaileavesley I think its kind of like a parallel reasoning/analogy question in LR when they ask us to apply the logic of the stimulus to one of the answer choices.
Natives did not practice sea otter hunting because they were prevent from doing so. The court decided this practice should be considered traditional because it was something they practiced regularly but could not do it in recent years due to actions out of their control.
AC C is corrected because it includes the element of the practice being stopped due to actions out of their control. The other ACs are missing this key element which makes D the most correct.
I originally chose C but ruled it out because I thought the word "discontinued" implied that they were never going to practice the tradition again, which is not what was going to happen in the otter situation. But I get why it's right now.
The other big thing about answer choice E that made me eliminate it is that a few elders practicing the tradition means it's still within "living memory", and the 1991 court case is arguing precisely against that sort of restriction, so it isn't really helping to demonstrate the proper application in the first place.
Ugh. I tried to distinguish between the holding and incidental argument, because the passage makes rejecting the FWS 'living memory' standard as 'strained' and "excessively restrictive" the holding, and the argument about a state action causing interruption isn't necessary to make that argument. But, logically, of course C and E would both be covered by the holding, and C is a closer match to the fact pattern. I picked E thinking it would be a better representation of the specific thing the passage says the court held, because it would show that it's just the living memory test, but that's obviously not how you're supposed to pick the answer to an LSAT question >:(
byeee wheres my 170 and up these take me 2 seconds now and I was literally having a mental breakdown before over RC. It's legit just logical reasoning on steroids.
so take what you deduce and find an answer that is similar to that reasoning despite the additional context being unnecessary. I poe'd C BECAUSE its heft sounded irrelevant to the context but i guess its earlier half was exactly what the 1991 case described.
I don’t understand this explanation..the ac says the animals left due to industrial development it doesn’t say the natives were prevented from using the herd animals because of industrial development? I interpreted like they weren’t used because they simply werent available in the area anymore because the habitat was destroyed by buildings etc? Surely they could have gone else where to get the animals they needed? I don’t see how we can jump to them being “prevented” just because they weren’t available in the area anymore? i don’t see how this is analogous to the situation in the passage in which an actual law was preventing the use of the otters…can you explain further how this is an example of “traditional” based on the passage? #help
All we know about the case in the question stem is that an important question for that case is whether the handicraft in question can be described as "traditional".
In 1991, the court decided that the items made with sea otter pelts may be defined as "traditional" despite previous, narrow "definitions" of traditional requiring that a traditional handicraft is a continuously and commonly practiced handicraft.
The court in 1991 acknowledged that continuously practicing that handicraft was impossible from 1910-1972 because of the law of the land prohibiting that practice.
In doing so, they established that the continuity of the practice is not a necessary factor in all cases, and that in some cases--such as the one in answer C-- this requirement can be ignored because the practice WOULD still be taking place were it not for external factors outside of the control of these indigenous peoples.
When I got down to (C) and (E) I was definitely blanking trying to figure out why one was wrong and the other right. But then I remembered what the L in LSAT stands for and immediately figured it out lol. Got -0 on this passage. If only all LSAT passages were about the L in LSAT, sighs. I guess most us will be in school for it soon enough in any case lol.
28 comments
I don't mind picking the wrong answer in the more difficult questions. I do mind when I'm among the [checks notes] 3% who did so.
I've been part of the 0% too somehow
i went into this passage so confident and completely bombed it LOL
this passage was the hardest one yet omg
Same
Welcome to the club my friend :)
I fell for A rip :(
This question did not make sense to me at all
@Kaileavesley I think its kind of like a parallel reasoning/analogy question in LR when they ask us to apply the logic of the stimulus to one of the answer choices.
Natives did not practice sea otter hunting because they were prevent from doing so. The court decided this practice should be considered traditional because it was something they practiced regularly but could not do it in recent years due to actions out of their control.
AC C is corrected because it includes the element of the practice being stopped due to actions out of their control. The other ACs are missing this key element which makes D the most correct.
I chose both of the other options that were tricks. Cool.
i was dead stuck between c and a & then got it right in BR i need to stop second guessing
I originally chose C but ruled it out because I thought the word "discontinued" implied that they were never going to practice the tradition again, which is not what was going to happen in the otter situation. But I get why it's right now.
The other big thing about answer choice E that made me eliminate it is that a few elders practicing the tradition means it's still within "living memory", and the 1991 court case is arguing precisely against that sort of restriction, so it isn't really helping to demonstrate the proper application in the first place.
I got this wrong because I did not understand the implications of what the paragraph was ACTUALLY saying altogether.
7/7 on this passage! Lets gooo
@famiagul99987 cool
Ugh. I tried to distinguish between the holding and incidental argument, because the passage makes rejecting the FWS 'living memory' standard as 'strained' and "excessively restrictive" the holding, and the argument about a state action causing interruption isn't necessary to make that argument. But, logically, of course C and E would both be covered by the holding, and C is a closer match to the fact pattern. I picked E thinking it would be a better representation of the specific thing the passage says the court held, because it would show that it's just the living memory test, but that's obviously not how you're supposed to pick the answer to an LSAT question >:(
byeee wheres my 170 and up these take me 2 seconds now and I was literally having a mental breakdown before over RC. It's legit just logical reasoning on steroids.
100% accuracy for this passage let's goo!!!
lol both A and C require assumptions
so take what you deduce and find an answer that is similar to that reasoning despite the additional context being unnecessary. I poe'd C BECAUSE its heft sounded irrelevant to the context but i guess its earlier half was exactly what the 1991 case described.
I don’t understand this explanation..the ac says the animals left due to industrial development it doesn’t say the natives were prevented from using the herd animals because of industrial development? I interpreted like they weren’t used because they simply werent available in the area anymore because the habitat was destroyed by buildings etc? Surely they could have gone else where to get the animals they needed? I don’t see how we can jump to them being “prevented” just because they weren’t available in the area anymore? i don’t see how this is analogous to the situation in the passage in which an actual law was preventing the use of the otters…can you explain further how this is an example of “traditional” based on the passage? #help
All we know about the case in the question stem is that an important question for that case is whether the handicraft in question can be described as "traditional".
In 1991, the court decided that the items made with sea otter pelts may be defined as "traditional" despite previous, narrow "definitions" of traditional requiring that a traditional handicraft is a continuously and commonly practiced handicraft.
The court in 1991 acknowledged that continuously practicing that handicraft was impossible from 1910-1972 because of the law of the land prohibiting that practice.
In doing so, they established that the continuity of the practice is not a necessary factor in all cases, and that in some cases--such as the one in answer C-- this requirement can be ignored because the practice WOULD still be taking place were it not for external factors outside of the control of these indigenous peoples.
ok I think I understand better now, thank you!
When I got down to (C) and (E) I was definitely blanking trying to figure out why one was wrong and the other right. But then I remembered what the L in LSAT stands for and immediately figured it out lol. Got -0 on this passage. If only all LSAT passages were about the L in LSAT, sighs. I guess most us will be in school for it soon enough in any case lol.
Just wanted to say, what a great username!
Thank you! It is quite convenient that it is also my actual name.
had to refer to the passage in BR and got it there