PT106.S4.P1.Q1 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Some Native American tribes have had difficulty establishing their land claims because the United States government did not recognize their status as tribes; therefore during the 1970s some Native Americans attempted to obtain such recognition through the medium of U.S. courts. ███

Intro topic · NA tribes tried to make claims to land through U.S. courts

Problem · Process of NA lawsuits showed conflict that can exist between cultures with different systems of discourse

██ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ █████████████ █████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███████████████████████████ █ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ██████████████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███

Example · Mashpee brought lawsuit to recover their land

Non-Mashpee purchased the land in violation of a statute requiring federal approval of sales of NA-land to non-NA people.

Status as "tribe" · Mashpee had to show they were tribe to get protection of statute

Tribe was defined as a group of Native Americans "governing themselves under one leadership and inhabiting a particular territory."

███ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████████████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ██ ████ █ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ █████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ █████████████████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ████████████ ███ █████████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ███████████████████ ███ ████ █████████████ ███

Requirement of written documentation · Mashpee couldn't show that they met definition of tribe, because they didn't have written documentation

Mashpee were an oral culture, so didn't have deeds or writings and delineated the boundaries of Mashpee land.

Recent changes for better · Similar land claims have been more successful recently

Courts acknowledge that different discourses between cultures can lead to unfair legal results.

Passage Style

Problem-analysis

Single position

Which one of the following ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████

Question Type

Main point

The main point of this Problem-Analysis passage is the core problem that the author raises: when cultures with different systems of discourse come into legal conflict, those differences can get in the way of fair outcomes. The Mashpee land claim suit is an example of this.

Land claim suits ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████

Too narrow. The Mashpee’s failure in court due to lack of written documentation just supports the author’s main point.

Land claim suits ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████

Unsupported. The author doesn’t suggest that courts have the wrong definition of “tribe.” Rather, the Mashpee had a hard time showing that they’re a tribe because of different systems of discourse between Native American cultures and U.S. legal culture.

Land claim suits ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ █████████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ █████████

The author introduces this point in P1 and spends the rest of the passage supporting it.

92%

Land claim suits ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ █████████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ███████

Unsupported. The author doesn’t suggest any difference or discrepancy between “recognized” evidence and “accepted” evidence.

Land claim suits ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ██████ ██████ █ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████

Too narrow. The source of the problem, and the author’s main point, isn’t that application of precedent is a problem. Rather, application of precedent (and legal methodology more broadly) is what brought the problem to light: Native American cultures and U.S. legal culture have different systems of discourse.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 106 - Section 4 - Passage 1 - Question 1

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 106 - Section 4 - Passage 1 - Question 1

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?