PrepTest 157

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Background on HMS Sussex discovery (agreement between N.A. company and British government is a legal breakthrough)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author's attitude: "legal breakthrough" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author on ocean exploration tech and legal agreement (allows governments to recover sunken objects, end unauthorized treasure hunting)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • While technology allows for the discovery of sunken treasures, governments often lack the money, skills, and legal precedent to recover these goods (first and second sentences)
    • The HMS Sussex agreement could end the days of unauthorized treasure hunting and allow nations to oversee the recovery of their lost ships (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "could end" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Specifications of agreement (calls for "archaeological integrity"; only sell coins) and archaeologists' view (disapprove sale of artifacts)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Archaeologists' view:
    • The HMS Sussex company probably cannot maintain "archaeological integrity" (third sentence)
    • The sale of recovered artifacts prevents scholarship and public display (fourth sentence)
  • Comparison, according to the agreement:
    • A distinction is drawn between different types of artifacts on the HMS Sussex; can sell items (like coins) with less archaeological value (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "likely" (first sentence)

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Definition of "underwater cultural heritage" (UCH) (artifacts underwater for more than 100 years)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Point of intersection with passage A:
    • HMS Sussex qualifies as UCH

Paragraph 2 (includes all numbered paragraphs)

• Paragraph note
  • UNESCO rules for recovering UCH (preserve first; don't sell; harm as little as possible; don't disturb human remains; promote public access)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, points of intersection, and the author's attitude
  • Points of intersection with passage A:
    • Removing UCH "only when they make a significant contribution to knowledge, protection, and/or enhancement of UCH" matches passage A’s distinction between coins and "cultural items have greater archaeological value" (second sentence)
    • The agreement between the British government and the company recovering the HMS Sussex violates the rule against "trade, sale, barter, or speculation" (third sentence)
    • The agreement's aim to maintain archaeological integrity follows the rule that activities "shall not impact UCH more than is necessary" (fourth sentence)
    • The archaeologists' preference for scholarly analysis and public display matches the stipulation for "scientific studies" and "[p]ublic access" (sixth and last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "best achieved" (first sentence); "fundamentally incompatible" (third sentence); "must be as nondestructive as possible" (sixth sentence)

Passage A: An agreement between the British government and a company that discovered the sunken HMS Sussex could end the days of unauthorized treasure hunting and allow nations to oversee the recovery of their lost ships, although archaeologists likely disapprove of the arrangement.

Passage B: A series of UNESCO rules govern the recovery of "underwater cultural heritage."

Relationship - Different Scopes: Both passages discuss the recovery of sunken artifacts. However, the topic of passage B is also quite a bit broader in scope than the topic of passage A. Passage B discusses general rules that apply to any artifacts that qualify as "underwater cultural heritage" (UCH). However, passage A is just about recovering artifacts from one ship that qualifies as UCH. Because the scope and topics of these passages are different (and there's very little author's opinion in either), expect very few questions to ask us to compare the passages' details or the authors' views. Expect some questions to apply the rules from passage B to the situation described in passage A.

Hey, it's a passage that literally invites us to apply laws (passage B) to a fact pattern (passage A). Get ready for a lot more of this in law school.