Context for the two court cases Β·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 Β·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
2.
The court in the 1991 ββββ ββββββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββββββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββ βββββββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ βββββββ ββ βββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββββββββββ
Question Type
Stated
The 1991 case is discussed in P4. The FWS interpreted βtraditionalβ as only applying to activities that have been practiced βwithin living memory.β The courtβs view was that this interpretation was excessively restrictive and also that it defied common sense about what βtraditionalβ means.
Unstated. The courtβs reasons for disagreeing with the FWSβs interpretation werenβt about how Alaska Natives historically interpreted βtraditional.β In fact, the passage doesnβt discuss how Alaska Natives interpreted βtraditional.β (We just know that at least two Alaska Natives werenβt happy about having their handiwork seized.) The courtβs reasons were entirely about how the FWS interpreted βtraditionalβ: it was excessively restrictive and defied common sense.
b
was not consonant ββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββββββββ
Unstated. The courtβs view had nothing to do with dictionary definitions; it was all about what a reasonable legal interpretation of βtraditionalβ should be.
c
was inconsistent with ββββ βββ ββββ βββββββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ ββββ
Stated. The court said that the FWSβs interpretation defied common sense about what βtraditionalβ means. (C) is a good paraphrase for defying common sense.
d
led the FWS ββ βββ βββ ββββ βββββββββββββ ββ ββββββββ β ββββββββ ββββ ββββββ βββ ββββ ββββ βββββββββ ββ ββββ
Anti-supported. The opposite is true. In the courtβs view, the FWS didnβt consider something βtraditionalβ that, in fact, should have been considered βtraditional.β
Unstated. The FWS did specify this, and the court didnβt suggest otherwise. What the court disagreed with was how the FWS went about deciding what didnβt qualify.
Difficulty
62% of people who answer get this correct
This is a difficult question.
It is similar in difficulty to other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%145
157
75%169
Analysis
Stated
Law
Problem-analysis
Single position
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
21%
160
b
1%
158
c
62%
165
d
11%
160
e
4%
158
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 belowβit only takes a minuteβand 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 belowβit only takes a minuteβand then youβre 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 belowβit only takes a minuteβand then youβre 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.