Context for the two court cases ·Between 1910 and 1972, natives couldn't hunt sea otters
In 1972, a statute was passed allowing natives to hunt, but only for use in making authentic native articles by means of "traditional native handicrafts."
Second court case ·Government agency's interpretation overturned
Court heard testimony showing that before Alaska was occupied, natives had used sea otters for many things. This showed that making stuff out of sea otter pelts was "traditional." The gov agency's interpretation of "traditional" was too narrow.
Passage Style
Problem-analysis
Single position
1.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
Question Type
Main point
In this Problem-Analysis passage, the author describes a problem and then illustrates how that problem presented itself and was addressed. So the main point is that a problem (interpreting “tradition” in a limited way) presented itself (the FWS seized otter pelts) and was addressed (a court case overturned the FWS’s interpretation).
This is a good summary of both the problem described in P1-P2 (applying the legal concept of tradition in Alaska is difficult) and the illustration given in P3 (two cases involving sea otter pelts exemplify that difficulty).
Descriptively inaccurate. The author doesn’t suggest that a “wave” of other lawsuits are occurring or will occur. He also doesn’t suggest that any lawsuits were or are in response to regulatory changes. The only two lawsuits discussed in the passage were in response to existing regulations, not changing regulations.
Descriptively inaccurate. The definitions of “traditional” and “authentic native articles” are at issue, but they aren’t being reviewed—they were simply rejected (in one court decision, anyway). And they weren’t rejected in light of new evidence from historical sources (e.g., newly discovered historical documents or new archaeological evidence). The author just says they were rejected based on modern “testimony,” which might not be new information and might also not be a historical source.
This gets the problem wrong. The problem the author raises isn’t about how sensitive any laws are to anyone’s concerns; it’s about the unclear definition of tradition and the difficulty in applying “tradition” as a legal concept.
Difficulty
80% of people who answer get this correct
This is a slightly challenging question.
It is significantly easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%123
141
75%158
Analysis
Main point
Law
Problem-analysis
Single position
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
80%
164
b
14%
161
c
0%
153
d
5%
157
e
1%
156
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
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.