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.
The 1986 case is discussed in P4. The court upheld the FWS regulations, which stated that if a handicraft hadn’t been produced “within living memory,” it didn’t count as an authentic native article. So the court must have believed that “traditional” should be defined along the lines of the FWS’s interpretation, which is that traditional practices must have continued through recent history.
Strongly supported. The court upheld the FWS regulations, which stated that if a handicraft hadn’t been produced “within living memory,” it didn’t count as an authentic native article. So the court must have believed that “traditional” should be defined along the lines of the FWS’s interpretation, which is that traditional practices have continued through recent history with some regularity.
c
reflects the term's █████ ██ ████████ █████████
Unsupported. This is closer to the 1991 court’s interpretation, which was that the meaning of “traditional” shouldn’t defy common sense. But we’re interested in the 1986 court’s interpretation, which was that the FWS was right: “traditional” should mean something that’s been practiced “within living memory.” And nothing in the passage suggests that this interpretation is consistent with everyday usage.
Unsupported. The court agreed with the FWS that for something to be “traditional,” it must have been practiced “within living memory.” This doesn’t mean that traditional practices should include new activities; it just means that traditional practices should be continuing through to the present day.
Anti-supported. The 1986 court didn’t interpret “traditional” in a way that reflected the concerns of Katelnikoff. Instead, it favored the FWS’s position.
Difficulty
83% of people who answer get this correct
This is a moderately difficult question.
It is somewhat easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%129
142
75%155
Analysis
Implied
Law
Problem-analysis
Single position
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
2%
158
b
83%
164
c
4%
161
d
5%
157
e
5%
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 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.