Reading comp PrepTest 133 · Section 4 · Question 1

Topic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Legal concept (tradition as an exemption) and resulting problems (not defined, so problematic/inconsistent rulings)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Both state and federal laws allow individuals to engage in "traditional" activities in Alaska that would otherwise be off limits (second sentence)
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • "Traditional" is rarely defined, which causes legal rulings to be problematic and inconsistent (third through last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "powerful" (first sentence); "rarely defined" (third sentence); "seems to be a presumption" (fourth sentence); "Failure" (last sentence); "has given rise to problematic and inconsistent legal results" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Introduction to a concept associated with tradition (long-standing practice) and two court cases that illustrate problems with concept
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "long-standing practice": Passage of time as well as continuity (first sentence)
  • Examples of problems associated with the "long-standing practice" concept, according to the author:
    • Two cases about sea otter pelts (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "most prevalent" (first sentence); "illustrate the problems" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Background on cases (1972 exemption for "traditional native handicrafts" but not sea otter pelts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • The 1910 Fur Seal Treaty prohibited hunting sea otters and the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) also prohibited hunting sea otters but made exemptions for "traditional native handicrafts," but not items made with sea otter fur since they weren't used "within living memory" (first to last sentences)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Two cases are discussed (changed "living memory" standard since Alaska Natives couldn't make pelts for reasons outside their control)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Examples of cases that illustrate problems with definitions of "traditional," according to the author:
    • Case 1: Marina Katelnikoff articles seized; court rules this was fine (first and second sentences)
    • Case 2: Boyd Dickinson (and MK) articles seized; court rules that this wasn't OK since "living memory" wasn't a good definition of traditional, as the tradition was broken "by forces beyond" Native Alaskan control (third through last sentences)
  • The court's view (in the second case):
    • The "living memory" standard is too strict because Native Alaskans couldn't practice tradition due to Russian occupation/U.S. law (fifth through last sentences)

Main Point: Two cases involving sea otter pelts illustrate how the failure to define "tradition" has resulted in different interpretations, sometimes leading to problematic and inconsistent legal results.

Generalization/Example: This passage most closely fits the Generalization/Example Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author usually makes a sweeping generalization, typically near the beginning of the passage. The remainder of the passage describes one or more specific examples that illustrate the sweeping generalization.

The author follows that pattern here, using the first paragraph to argue that the failure to define "tradition" in written laws has led to "problematic and inconsistent legal results" (P1, S5). The rest of the passage describes two cases that "illustrate the problems" associated with a common understanding of "tradition" as a legal concept (P2, S2).

In a Generalization/Example passage, the main point is generally the author’s sweeping generalization. Often, the main point will be presented as a variation of, "[The specific example] illustrates [sweeping generalization]." So, we made the main point: "Two cases involving sea otter pelts illustrate how the failure to define "tradition" has resulted in different interpretations, sometimes leading to problematic and inconsistent legal results."

*That said, you could argue this is a Problem/Solution passage (problem: the definition of "traditional" as a long-standing practice that's been continuous "within living memory"; solution: change "within living memory" standard). You could even argue that this is an Old Approach/New Approach passage (old approach: the definition of "traditional" as a long-standing practice that's been continuous "within living memory"; new approach: doesn't have to be continuous practice). Even though we though this passage is most explicitly presented as a Generalization/Example, you could develop an understanding of the main point and the passage's structure with these other Meta-Structures.

Paragraph 3 was something we definitely glossed over, but there will likely be questions that ask us to distinguish between the Fur Seal Treaty of 1910 and the MMPA of 1972, as well as not getting the FWS confused in there. Let’s be sure to head back to that paragraph to check any details when they’re being asked about.