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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to infer, based on the entire passage, a statement that must be true. Such questions can be very challenging. These questions provide little indication as to the topic of the correct answer or where it’ll show up in the passage. Moreover, the correct answer probably won't restate something from the passage. Instead, the question will likely require us to draw a connection between a few different pieces of information.We’ll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer these questions. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar and isn’t reflected in our notes on each paragraph, we shouldn’t check the passage to see if it was mentioned. Instead, we’ll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar, consistent with the main point, or reflected in our notes, we’ll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be true. If we can find that confirmation, we’ll select that answer choice and move on.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Between 1910 and 1972, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Yes! A prohibition on hunting sea otters was the central concern of the two cases, so this answer lines up with the main point of the passage. Moreover, our note for the fourth paragraph says that "Alaska Natives couldn't make pelts for reasons outside their control." These factors suggest that the passage probably supports this answer choice. Let's check the passage to confirm that.

    Taking a look at the beginning of the third paragraph, where the background that set up the cases was listed, we can see that the Fur Seal Treaty of 1910 prohibited the hunting of sea otters (P3, S1), lining up with the start of the timeline here. And the MMPA of 1972 “continued this prohibition,” implying that the prohibition was still in place in 1972 (P3, S2), lining up with the end of the timeline in this answer. Since there’s support for the start and end dates on this answer’s timeline, it’s the correct answer. We would be justified in selecting (A) and advancing straight to the following question.

  2. B
    Traditional items made from Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    This answer doesn’t line up with our overall understanding of the passage, as an explicit exemption for sea otter pelts would seem pretty clear, and thus, there would be no need to sue the FWS to allow the hunting and sale of sea otter pelts. For this reason, we can cross off (B) without checking the passage.

    If we had to review the passage, we'd find out that this answer choice is false. The MMPA exemption was for "authentic native articles" (P3, S2), not items made from sea otter pelts in particular. Plus,the FWS was able to interpret this not to include sea otter pelts (P3, S4).

  3. C
    In the late 1700s, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    No. Neither the main point nor our notes mention Russian hunters, so we can eliminate — or at least table — (C) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage, we'd see that the passage establishes that Russian occupation around 1700 ended the use of sea otter pelts by Native Alaskans (P4, S4), but there’s no discussion of what led to this happening.

  4. D
    By 1972, the sea Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Nope. Neither the main point nor our notes mention the sea otter population, so we can eliminate — or at least table — (D) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage, we'd see that it's implied that sea otters are protected under the law (P3, S2), but there’s no discussion of specific or comparative population levels, so this answer is unsupported.

  5. E
    Prior to the late Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Nope. Neither the main point nor our notes mention how much different animals were hunted before the late 1700s. Moreover, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language ("most often") that is hard to support and thus unlikely to appear in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. So, we can eliminate — or at least table — (E) without checking the passage.

    If we had to check the passage, we'd see that there’s no info about comparative hunting levels of different species.

What this tests

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion