PrepTest 133

[lcid:3631] Prep Test 133 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-7  .        In Alaska, tradition is a powerful legal concept,  . appearing in a wide variety of legal Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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.

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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.

Question prompt

The court in the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses the 1991 court's comment that the FWS's interpretation of the term "traditional" was "strained," and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed.Here, the question asks why the court in the 1991 case commented that the FWS's interpretation of the term "traditional" was "strained." Helpfully, the question stem points us to the middle of the fourth paragraph. Our note for the fourth paragraph suggests this court viewed that interpretation as strained because "Alaska Natives couldn't make pelts for reasons outside their control." That might be enough to help us select the correct answer. But if our memory of this part of the passage is a little shaky, we can review the passage if necessary.Reviewing the middle of the fourth paragraph, we'll see that it discusses the second case involving sea otter pelts, where the court ruled that a practice that had fallen out of use because of "circumstances beyond [Native Alaskans's] control" (P4, S6-S7) could still be considered "traditional." The court, in this case, called the FWS's interpretation of "traditional" "strained," showing that it disagreed with that interpretation. How did the FWC's interpretation compare to the court's? That info comes from the third paragraph: The FWS didn't think items produced from sea otter pelts were "traditional" because "Alaska Natives had not produced such handicrafts 'within living memory'" (P3, S4). So, the 1991 court thought the FWS's interpretation was too limited since Alaska Natives couldn't produce these items for reasons outside of their control. The court went on to say that the FWS's definition "defies common sense" (P4, S7), so let's find an answer saying that "strained" means something along the lines of "more limited than most people would assume it to be, thus defying common sense."

Answer choices

  1. A
    ignored the ways in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say that the 1991 court called the FWS's interpretation "strained" because their interpretation was more limited than most people would assume it to be, thus defying common sense?

    Nope. We can cross off (A). Besides, at no point is the definition of "tradition" tied to Alaska Natives' viewpoint or perception.

  2. B
    was not consonant with Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that the 1991 court called the FWS's interpretation "strained" because their interpretation was more limited than most people would assume it to be, thus defying common sense?

    No. Let's eliminate (B). Besides, at no point is the dictionary definition of "tradition" mentioned — just some abstract definition that is assumed to be "obvious" to people (P1, S4).

  3. C
    was inconsistent with what Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Does this say that the 1991 court called the FWS's interpretation "strained" because their interpretation was more limited than most people would assume it to be, thus defying common sense?

    Yes! The court said that the FWS's definition of "tradition" was "strained" and that it "defie[d] common sense" (P4, S5-S8). As such, it used that phrase to denote that the definition used was inconsistent with the common sense understanding of the word — what most people would normally understand the word to mean. This answer is, therefore, correct. We can justifiably select it and advance to the following question.

  4. D
    led the FWS to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say that the 1991 court called the FWS's interpretation "strained" because their interpretation was more limited than most people would assume it to be, thus defying common sense?

    Nope. We can eliminate (D). Besides, The court called the FWS's interpretation "excessively restrictive," and it ruled that a practice they decided wasn't traditional could be considered a traditional practice (P4, S5). This answer is contradicted by the passage!

  5. E
    failed to specify which Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say that the 1991 court called the FWS's interpretation "strained" because their interpretation was more limited than most people would assume it to be, thus defying common sense?

    No, so we can eliminate (E). Besides, The 1991 court ruled that the FWS's interpretation was "excessively restrictive" (P4, S5), suggesting that the FWS did have a definition of which crafts qualified as traditional. The court just disagreed with that definition/classification.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion