PT133.S4.P1.Q7 > Analytics

Hide analysis

In Alaska, tradition is a powerful legal concept, appearing in a wide variety of legal contexts relating to natural-resource and public-lands activities. ████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████████████ ██████████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████ █████ █████ ██ ██ █ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████████ █████ ████████

Problem · Failure to define "tradition" in statutes

Statutes in Alaska fail to define "tradition," which leads to problematic and inconsistent results.

Common legal understanding of "tradition" · Must be based on "long-standing" practice

"Long-standing" in terms of time, but also in continuity and regularity of a practice.

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

Examples of problem · Two court cases involving indigenous use of sea otter pelts

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."

Additional context · Government agency didn't consider items made from sea otter pelts to be authentic native articles

This is because these items weren't made "within living memory." (Recall that sea otter hunting was prohibited for natives between 1910 and 1972.)

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

First court case · Government agency's interpretation was upheld

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

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

The ruling in the 1991 ████ █████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ █████████████ ██████ ██████ ███████████

Question Type

Application

The 1991 ruling (P4) said that otter pelt use doesn’t need to have been practiced within living memory to be considered “traditional,” since Alaska Natives had made many uses of otter pelts earlier in history but then been prevented for a time by circumstances beyond their control. So the ruling would be most relevant as precedent for another case in which an Alaska Native handicraft was once common practice but then was forced to stop in more recent history.

A handicraft no ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███

Not quite. The reasons for the 1991 ruling involved the fact that the Alaska Natives were forced to stop their handicraft because of circumstances beyond their control. (A) doesn’t involve any circumstances beyond people’s control. It just says the handicraft was once practiced and then stopped. The timescale in (A) is also way off from the timescale in the 1991 case. In the 1991 case, the handicraft was practiced up until only a few hundred years ago (late 1700s). Since we don’t know what the 1991 ruling would have been if (1) the practice had stopped millennia ago and (2) there weren’t circumstances beyond people’s control, that ruling doesn’t make good precedent for (A).

16%

A handicraft that ████████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████████

The 1991 ruling didn’t say that something counted as “traditional” if it involved hunting several endangered species. It said something counted as “traditional” if it was once common practice before being forced to stop.

A handicraft that ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ ████████ █████████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████████

The 1991 ruling said that something counts as “traditional” if it was once common practice but then was forced to stop by extenuating circumstances in more recent history. (C) describes the same kind of scenario. So the 1991 ruling would be relevant as precedent for this case.

66%

A handicraft about █████ ████ █ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████

The 1991 ruling didn’t say that something counted as “traditional” if it involved a historically little-known practice. To the contrary, it said something counted as “traditional” if it was once common practice (and was then forced to stop).

A handicraft about █████ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ███████ █████ ████████ ██

The 1991 ruling didn’t say that something counted as “traditional” if it simply isn’t common now. It said something counted as “traditional” if it was once common practice before being forced to stop. (E) doesn’t tell us whether the handicraft was once common or why it’s uncommon now, so the 1991 ruling isn’t relevant precedent here.

13%

PrepTest 133 - Section 4 - Passage 1 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action