PrepTest 106

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Native American land claim lawsuits during the 1970s represented a cultural disjunction with the U.S. legal system
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Example: Groups of Native Americans attempted to establish their legal status as tribes by bringing suits in U.S. courts in the 1970s (first sentence)
    • Native American concepts and definitions were interpreted by the courts in terms of legal history and precedent (second sentence)
  • Generalization that example illustrates: When two cultures are involved in a process like trying lawsuits, it can become clear that the cultures have different perceptions and definitions (third sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “did not recognize” (first sentence); “obtain such recognition” (first sentence); “had to operate” (second sentence); “necessarily interpreted” (second sentence); “at variance” (third sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • In order to reclaim their land, the Mashpee Wampanoag were required to establish tribal status in a 1976 lawsuit
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Traditional Mashpee-controlled land was appropriated by the town government of Mashpee and sold to private investors (second - third sentences)
  • Mashpee sued, claiming land was taken from the tribe without federal approval (fourth sentence)
  • Town argued Mashpee were not a tribe according to an earlier legal definition: “a body of Native Americans ‘governing themselves under one leadership and inhabiting a particular territory’” (fifth-sixth sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “long been occupied” (second sentence); “balance of political power” (third sentence); “taken in violation” (fourth sentence); “required to demonstrate” (sixth sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Because of cultural differences, the court did not accept Mashpee oral testimony as evidence and decided against the tribe’s claim.
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Town claimed Mashpee needed to demonstrate:
    • written documentation of self-governance and
    • deed to territory they inhabited with precisely delineated boundaries (first sentence)
  • Mashpee had oral culture, so produced oral testimony in support of claims, explaining they simply didn’t write down the information that was being demanded (second sentence)
  • Court didn’t “‘understand’” oral testimony as evidence and decided against Mashpee because of difference in definitions between Mashpee culture and U.S. legal culture (third sentence)
  • Subsequent decisions have shown courts beginning to acknowledge the role of cultural differences and sometimes deciding cases in favor of Native American tribes (fourth sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “the town argued” (first sentence); “only if they could show” (first sentence); “only if they had precisely delineated” (first sentence); “marshaled oral testimony” (second sentence); “what the town perceived” (second sentence); “oral culture” (second sentence); “the court’s inability” (third sentence); “begun to acknowledge” (fourth sentence); “failure to accommodate differences” (fourth sentence); “sometimes stand in the way” (fourth sentence)

Main Point: The outcome of the Mashpee’s land claim lawsuit in 1976 serves as an example of how problems can arise when two cultures with different systems of discourse interact.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - introduces context of Native American land claims

P1, S3 - Generalization

P2, S6 - Legal definition of “tribe” that Mashpee had to fit

P3, S2 - Identification of cultural difference

P3, S3 - Outcome of cultural disjunction

P3, S4 - Implications of cultural disjunction for achieving justice

Generalization/Example: This passage uses a Generalization/Example Meta-Structure. These Meta-Structures can be challenging to discern, as test-takers sometimes focus too much on the example part without realizing why that example was included. At the beginning of a Generalization/Example passage, the author will often describe a common problem or phenomenon.The author then argues that a specific example of that problem or phenomenon illustrates some deeper truth about that problem or phenomenon. The rest of the passage will describe the example in-depth. Because most of the passage will discuss the example, it's easy to forget about the general point the author initially conveyed.

Here, the author begins with the general topic of Native American land claim lawsuits in the 1970s and asserts that the outcomes of these suits exemplified what happens when two cultures with different “systems of discourse” interact (P1 S3). The specific example that the rest of the passage discusses is the 1976 Mashpee suit, which the author describes in detail. The central issue on which the case, and the passage, turns is that the Mashpee had an oral culture in which there were no written records of their self-governmental activities and land possession (P3 S3). Because the U.S. legal definition of “tribe” required written evidence of both of these things (P3 S1), the court decided the case against the Mashpee, despite the fact that the tribe presented oral testimony (P3 S2). The passage implies that the outcome of this case was unfair and states that progress has been made in the years since the case in terms of U.S. courts being more accepting of different cultural practices, even if they don’t fit the definitions of the U.S. legal system (P3 S4). The final sentence discusses the need to accommodate different cultural definitions in order to ensure fairness in legal decisions (P3 S4).

This passage presents a classic introduction-detail-conclusion structure that is fairly straightforward to follow. A general point is made, then a specific example that illustrates that point is discussed, then a general conclusion that harks back to the introduction is drawn. The author’s perspective on the issue is implied through the first and second paragraphs and made explicit at the end of the third paragraph. There are no tricks and no esoteric language included in the passage; test-takers can be confident that there are no hidden pitfalls either in reading the passage or answering the questions.

One important thing to note in this question is that the author seems to use “systems of discourse,” a term mentioned in the first paragraph, to refer to ways of defining concepts and communicating those concepts. The author never explicitly defines this term, but as we move through the passage, the author refers to differences in how the Mashpee and U.S. courts define certain words. “Record,” in the Mashpee’s culture, seems to mean an oral tradition (P3 S2), whereas “record” in the U.S. legal system means a written document (P3 S1, P3 S3). It was this mismatch of definitions that led to the court’s decision against the Mashpee’s claim to the land (P3 S3). So while “systems of discourse” initially seems to be a general and puzzling term, it becomes clearer as we go through the passage what the author means by it.