PrepTest 101

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • How Native American tribes can establish standing to recover artifacts taken from burial sites
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of the three ways Native Americans can establish standing in cases involving items from burial sites (third sentence):
    • If the plaintiff is the deceased person's heir
    • If the plaintiff owns the land where the burial sites is located
    • If the plaintiff has a clear interest in preserving the burial sites
  • Comparison between the likelihood of establishing standing (fourth sentence):
    • Native Americans are likely to establish standing if the grave is recent and located in an area associated with the plaintiffs; Native Americans are less likely when the grave is ancient and the plaintiffs haven't recently lived in the area where the grave is located
  • Author's view:
    • Common law can provide basis for Native Americans with standing to recover property taken from burial sites (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "less likely to be successful" (fourth sentence); "significant expansion" (fifth sentence); "may provide" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • How Native Americans can use property law to reclaim artifacts from burial sites
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "abandonment": Legal doctrine that allows the finder of abandoned property to claim ownership of the property (second sentence)
    • Doesn't apply to property from graves, per Charrier v. Bell (third and fourth sentences)
  • Author's view:
    • Artifacts excavated from burial sites should be returned to tribes that can establish standing (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • How community property can help Native Americans recover artifacts
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison between individual and communal property:
    • Native American individuals do not have title to communal property owned by the tribe; this communal property cannot be sold by an individual

Main Point: Common law provides a few ways for Native Americans who can establish standing to recover artifacts taken from burial sites.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 (P1, S1) - Problem described

P2, S4 - Prerequisite for solution discussed

P2, S6 - Author summarizes solution

Problem/Solution: This passage best fits the Problem/Solution Meta-Structure. In such a passage, the author will typically start by describing some problem. In this passage, the problem is the excavation and display of Native American remains and artifacts from ancestral graves. Native Americans view this as "spiritual desecration" (P1, S1). After the problem is identified, the author will typically describe one or more solutions. Here, that solution is using the legal system to recover these excavated artifacts — assuming the Native American claimants can establish "standing" (described at length in "Last Thoughts?" below). The author discusses how property law and the concept of community property can allow some Native American plaintiffs (those bringing the lawsuit to recover the artifacts) to reclaim the artifacts.

The main point in Problem/Solution passages is typically the solution the author describes or endorses. The author summarizes the common law solution in the last sentence of the first paragraph. We can use that sentence when assessing answer choices on the Main Point question or any other question on which we need to refer to the main point.

Legal passages — especially legal passages from older practice tests — have an annoying habit of sometimes rewarding test-takers who know legal terminology. That's not how it's supposed to work — you're supposed to be able to take the LSAT without any specialized knowledge. And recent legal passages have certainly done a better job of leveling the playing field by avoiding legal jargon. However, this passage uses the legal term "standing" repeatedly without ever explicitly defining that term. We'd argue that knowing what "standing" is would make understanding this passage easier. (The test-writers would presumably respond that the meaning of this term can be inferred from the passage. We'd counter by saying that's debatable, but prior knowledge of that term — as some test-takers undoubtedly possess — makes that inference unnecessary.)

At any rate, if you didn't quite understand what "standing" means, here's a quick and hopefully not-too-boring primer. "Standing" refers to one's ability to bring a lawsuit against another party. The U.S., at least, has a reputation as a litigious country. Still, we don't let anyone sue anyone else (or, more accurately, we don't let anyone take a lawsuit very far in the judicial process). Let's say I see my mortal enemy X steal from my best friend Y. As a person who respects both Y and personal property, this action offends me to my core. It offends me so much that I want to sue my mortal enemy X for theft (well, technically, I'd have to sue for "conversion," but that's another topic). Could I? No, because I would lack "standing" to bring that lawsuit against X. I wasn't the victim in that case — Y was. So Y may have the standing to sue X, but not I. If I sued X, my case would be dismissed because I lacked "standing."

So, that's what the author means when they say that Native American plaintiffs have a better chance of establishing standing — and thus recovering artifacts from burial sites — when they can show the burial sites is recent and located in an area associated with the plaintiffs (P1, S4). The legal system will allow Native American plaintiffs to use the courts to recover artifacts taken from recent graves associated with the plaintiffs. The legal system will probably dismiss the cases brought by Native American plaintiffs who try to recover artifacts from ancient graves or graves in areas where they haven't lived for a long time because these plaintiffs lack standing.