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 ruling 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

Review the relevant part of the passage and notes, if necessary, to anticipate key features of the facts and ruling in the 1991 case

Answer Anticipation

We’re calling this an Analogous Situation question because any answer where the ruling from the 1991 case applies would have to have a similar fact pattern to the case in which the ruling was reached. These Application/Analogous Situation questions closely resemble Parallel Reasoning questions in Logical Reasoning. In this case, the correct answer will need to feature similar facts as the 1991 case. Therefore, we should start by reviewing the key features of the 1991 case.Heading back to the fourth paragarph, we see the 1991 case was the second one where the court sided with the Native Alaskan selling handicrafts made from sea otter pelts (P4, S3). There, it was noted that just because sea otters weren’t hunted by Native Alaskans"within living memory," that didn’t mean it wasn’t a traditional activity (P4, S5). Why? Because that activity was "prevented, by circumstances beyond their control" , but it was practiced before such circumstances happened (P4, S6-S7).So, let’s find a similar activity that was done in the past but was then interrupted by circumstances beyond the control of the indigenous group.

Answer choices

  1. A
    A handicraft no longer Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this answer choice describe an activity that was done in the past before being interrupted by circumstances beyond the control of the indigenous group?

    So tempting! However, there’s no indication that the practice of the handicraft was stopped because of circumstances beyond the control of the indigenous group. Maybe they discontinued it for reasons under their control, and thus the court’s ruling wouldn’t apply.

  2. B
    A handicraft that commonly Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this answer choice describe an activity that was done in the past before being interrupted by circumstances beyond the control of the indigenous group?

    Nope. There’s no indication that this handicraft had an interruption in its practice.

  3. C
    A handicraft that was Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Does this answer choice describe an activity that was done in the past before being interrupted by circumstances beyond the control of the indigenous group?

    Yes! This answer is very similar to (A), but it provides a reason that the handicraft was stopped — herd animals left the local habitat due to industrial development. That’s a circumstance beyond the control of the indigenous group, and so this handicraft would be considered "traditional" based on the ruling of the court in the second case. This answer is, therefore, correct. We'd be justified in selecting it and finishing up with this passage.

  4. D
    A handicraft about which Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this answer choice describe an activity that was done in the past before being interrupted by circumstances beyond the control of the indigenous group?

    No. There's no indication that this handicraft had an interruption in practice, and it doesn’t even seem as if it was widely practiced!

  5. E
    A handicraft about which Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this answer choice describe an activity that was done in the past before being interrupted by circumstances beyond the control of the indigenous group?

    Negative. This answer doesn’t highlight a practice that has been interrupted — just slowed down.

What this tests

Discussion

  • B vs C 1 reply

    Started by Connor

View all discussions Start a discussion