GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Nov 2018, 06:25

LIVE NOW!

LBS is Calling R1 Admits - Join Chat Room to Catch the Latest Action


Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • All GMAT Club Tests are Free and open on November 22nd in celebration of Thanksgiving Day!

     November 22, 2018

     November 22, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open November 22nd to celebrate Thanksgiving Day! Access will be available from 0:01 AM to 11:59 PM, Pacific Time (USA)
  • Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

     November 24, 2018

     November 24, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 5
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2016, 22:17
2
Q8: The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands : Winters doctrine is applied to pueblo lands even though they are not federal lands but according to the three criteria it should not be applied to the pueblo lands
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine :
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos. : the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
Q10: According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.: this is stated in line 4 of the passage
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
Q11: The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations: we are not tracing the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes: even though the passage questions about the legal criteria it has not stopped at this point .
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations
Q12: Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in highlight text, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in the last sentence of first paragraph?
A Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.
B Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.: it states that winters is applied to even for lands that are not covered in the 3 points in the first passage
C Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.
D Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
E Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.

Q13: The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in hightlight text of the passage is best defined as one that
A grants recognition to reservations that were never formally established but that have traditionally been treated as such : this is what is stated i the second passage
B determines the water rights of all citizens in a particular region by examining the actual history of water usage in that region
C gives federal courts the right to reserve water along with land even when it is clear that the government originally intended to reserve only the land
D bases the decision to recognize the legal rights of a group on the practical effect such a recognition is likely to have on other citizens
Q14: The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
A guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.California : it is not guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.California
B abolished by the Winters doctrine : the winters didnot abolished
C deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this
D guaranteed by federal land-use laws
E limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians : the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
Study Buddy Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1256
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 16:59
Hi Gmatninja / Gmatninja2,
Would you help applying correct reading strategy to this example?
I took 9 mins and unfortunately got all ans incorrect since could not
understand the passage itself.
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 488
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2017, 06:59
Thanks GMATNinja

I got the below question wrong. Can you help to explain this question?

Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
_________________

My journey From 410 to 700 :-)
Here's my experience when I faced a glitch in my GMAT Exam
Don't do this mistake when you give your GMATPrep Mock!
NEW GMATPrep software analysis by Bunuel

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2105
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2017, 19:51
1
pikolo2510 wrote:
Thanks GMATNinja

I got the below question wrong. Can you help to explain this question?

Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

This is actually question #2 in this thread, referring to the following criteria:

Quote:
Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

The Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from federal public lands ("the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands"), so the second criteria would not apply. Also, the pueblos were never established as a reservation, so the third criteria would not apply. Thus, according to those criteria alone, the courts would NOT be able to find federal rights to reserve the waters of the Rio Grande pueblos (since not all three criteria are satisfied).

Establishing water rights for the pueblos required something beyond those three criteria: "What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States." A legal basis for the water rights of the pueblos only exists if this "pragmatic approach" is upheld by the courts. If we only use the three criteria referred to in this question, there is no legal basis.

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Senior SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1319
Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2017, 00:32
1
vksunder wrote:
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 13th Edition, 2012

Practice Question
Question No.: RC 56 ~ 62
Page: 390

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.


4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
(B) explain the legal basis for the water rights of American Indian tribes
(C) question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes
(D) discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
(E) point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations



Passage: Water Rights

Question: Main Idea

The Simple Story


The passage discusses laws that determine who holds the water rights on American Indian reservations. The Winters v. United States case determined that American Indians held the water rights on a particular reservation, even though water rights were not included in the treaty that originally established the reservation. This case established the guidelines for determining whether a group owns the water rights to federal land. However, other American Indian tribes have claimed water rights as well, even if their cases did not fit the guidelines exactly.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1:

W v US decision: AI keep water rights on reservation

3 rules for water rights established

P2:

some tribes have water rights for other reasons

ex. RG pueblos don’t technically fit W v US rules

Ariz vs Cali says W v US rules apply to RG pueblos anyways

Step 1: Identify the Question

The words primary purpose of the passage in the question stem indicate that this is a Primary Purpose question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The support for a Primary Purpose question is in the main point(s) of the entire passage, not in any particular section. To find the support for a question of this type, briefly review your passage map.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The majority of the passage is devoted to describing the legal cases that made various findings regarding water rights on reservations. The first paragraph deals with the Winters criteria, which represent one way of handling the issue. In the second paragraph, exceptions to the Winters criteria are mentioned, and one particular exception—that of the Rio Grande pueblos—is described. The passage does not argue for a particular criterion, or take a stance on the legal issues itself. The right answer will state that the passage describes the legal issues surrounding the establishment of water rights on American Indian reservations.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The majority of the passage describes laws specifically related to water rights on established reservations, not laws related to the establishment of reservations.

(B) CORRECT. All of the legal cases described in the passage relate directly to the water rights of American Indian tribes. The passage also describes multiple ways in which American Indian tribes have established water rights, either in accordance with those legal cases or despite them.

(C) The passage does not judge the criteria used to determine water rights. Rather, it neutrally describes a set of criteria and the ways in which those criteria have been altered and applied.

(D) Although several dates are mentioned in the passage, the passage does not mention that any case discussed represents the earliest recognition of water rights for American Indian tribes. There could be legal cases or other laws or treaties that predate the cases discussed in the passage.

(E) The passage does mention that the Rio Grande pueblos were different from other types of Indian reservations, since the Rio Grande pueblos were established in a way that made applying the Winters criteria difficult. However, the difference is only mentioned because it helps to clarify the difference between the different tribes' water rights. The issue of water rights in general, not the difference itself, is the point of the passage.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 93
GMAT 1: 620 Q43 V33
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Apr 2018, 08:13
Hi,

Can someone explain Q4? How is the primary purpose related to American Indians when 1/2 the passage is about the Pueblos?

Also for Q7, where is the limitation to prior claims mentioned in the passage? I'm not sure I understand why E is correct
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2105
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Apr 2018, 10:03
2
bpdulog wrote:
Hi,

Can someone explain Q4? How is the primary purpose related to American Indians when 1/2 the passage is about the Pueblos?

Also for Q7, where is the limitation to prior claims mentioned in the passage? I'm not sure I understand why E is correct

bpdulog, try reviewing this post and see if that helps you tackle question #4.

Quote:
7. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are

(A) guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v. California
(B) abolished by the Winters doctrine
(C) deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this
(D) guaranteed by federal land-use laws
(E) limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians

As for question #7, we are told that "the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands." From (2) in the first paragraph, we know that federal public lands are "the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws." So if that land were NOT considered a reservation of the Pueblo Indians, then it would be available for private use. But since it is considered a reservation, the rights of other citizens to use that land are limited.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 13 Aug 2017
Posts: 8
WE: Operations (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 May 2018, 00:50
hazelnut wrote:
vksunder wrote:
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 13th Edition, 2012

Practice Question
Question No.: RC 56 ~ 62
Page: 390

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.

4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
(B) explain the legal basis for the water rights of American Indian tribes
(C) question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes
(D) discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
(E) point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations



Passage: Water Rights

Question: Main Idea

The Simple Story


The passage discusses laws that determine who holds the water rights on American Indian reservations. The Winters v. United States case determined that American Indians held the water rights on a particular reservation, even though water rights were not included in the treaty that originally established the reservation. This case established the guidelines for determining whether a group owns the water rights to federal land. However, other American Indian tribes have claimed water rights as well, even if their cases did not fit the guidelines exactly.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1:

W v US decision: AI keep water rights on reservation

3 rules for water rights established

P2:

some tribes have water rights for other reasons

ex. RG pueblos don’t technically fit W v US rules

Ariz vs Cali says W v US rules apply to RG pueblos anyways

Step 1: Identify the Question

The words primary purpose of the passage in the question stem indicate that this is a Primary Purpose question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The support for a Primary Purpose question is in the main point(s) of the entire passage, not in any particular section. To find the support for a question of this type, briefly review your passage map.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The majority of the passage is devoted to describing the legal cases that made various findings regarding water rights on reservations. The first paragraph deals with the Winters criteria, which represent one way of handling the issue. In the second paragraph, exceptions to the Winters criteria are mentioned, and one particular exception—that of the Rio Grande pueblos—is described. The passage does not argue for a particular criterion, or take a stance on the legal issues itself. The right answer will state that the passage describes the legal issues surrounding the establishment of water rights on American Indian reservations.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The majority of the passage describes laws specifically related to water rights on established reservations, not laws related to the establishment of reservations.

(B) CORRECT. All of the legal cases described in the passage relate directly to the water rights of American Indian tribes. The passage also describes multiple ways in which American Indian tribes have established water rights, either in accordance with those legal cases or despite them.

(C) The passage does not judge the criteria used to determine water rights. Rather, it neutrally describes a set of criteria and the ways in which those criteria have been altered and applied.

(D) Although several dates are mentioned in the passage, the passage does not mention that any case discussed represents the earliest recognition of water rights for American Indian tribes. There could be legal cases or other laws or treaties that predate the cases discussed in the passage.

(E) The passage does mention that the Rio Grande pueblos were different from other types of Indian reservations, since the Rio Grande pueblos were established in a way that made applying the Winters criteria difficult. However, the difference is only mentioned because it helps to clarify the difference between the different tribes' water rights. The issue of water rights in general, not the difference itself, is the point of the passage.



i seriously like the brevity in your summary , its short and does not consume much time , i understood the passage , got 5 correct and 2 Wrong , but took a lot of time , around 22minutes. My summary was a lot longer.
I am just warming up , will be starting my GMAT Prep from next month.

Really there is a lot to learn from your Approach to this Question , thanks a lot for this valuable post.
_________________

Warming Up , Starting GMAT Prep from July'18.

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Mar 2018
Posts: 166
CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jun 2018, 23:49
carcass
GMATNinja
mikemcgarry
egmat
hazelnut
Can you please explain Q7 and Q2. ?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Oct 2017
Posts: 248
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V41
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2018, 04:03
teaserbae wrote:
carcass
GMATNinja
mikemcgarry
egmat
hazelnut
Can you please explain Q7 and Q2. ?

GMATNinja already explained both questions in this thread, you just have to keep your eyes open ;-)

I summarized them below, but of course all credit goes to GMATNinja.

Question 2:

Quote:
Q2: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.


Quote:
Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.


The Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from federal public lands ("the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands"), so the second criteria would not apply. Also, the pueblos were never established as a reservation, so the third criteria would not apply. Thus, according to those criteria alone, the courts would NOT be able to find federal rights to reserve the waters of the Rio Grande pueblos (since not all three criteria are satisfied).

Establishing water rights for the pueblos required something beyond those three criteria: "What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States." A legal basis for the water rights of the pueblos only exists if this "pragmatic approach" is upheld by the courts. If we only use the three criteria referred to in this question, there is no legal basis.

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.

Question 7:

Quote:
7. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are

(A) guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v. California
(B) abolished by the Winters doctrine
(C) deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this
(D) guaranteed by federal land-use laws
(E) limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians


As for question #7, we are told that "the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands." From (2) in the first paragraph, we know that federal public lands are "the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws." So if that land were NOT considered a reservation of the Pueblo Indians, then it would be available for private use. But since it is considered a reservation, the rights of other citizens to use that land are limited.
_________________

My goal: 700 GMAT score - REACHED :-) | My debrief - first attempt 710 (Q44,V41,IR7)

If I could help you with my answer, consider giving me Kudos

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 256
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2018, 23:19
GMATNinja wrote:
pikolo2510 wrote:
Thanks GMATNinja

I got the below question wrong. Can you help to explain this question?

Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

This is actually question #2 in this thread, referring to the following criteria:

Quote:
Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

The Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from federal public lands ("the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands"), so the second criteria would not apply. Also, the pueblos were never established as a reservation, so the third criteria would not apply. Thus, according to those criteria alone, the courts would NOT be able to find federal rights to reserve the waters of the Rio Grande pueblos (since not all three criteria are satisfied).

Establishing water rights for the pueblos required something beyond those three criteria: "What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States." A legal basis for the water rights of the pueblos only exists if this "pragmatic approach" is upheld by the courts. If we only use the three criteria referred to in this question, there is no legal basis.

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.


Hi GMATNinja,
would you please confirm my reasoning is solid?
ffrom the pasage, water right could be obtained by two ways,
way #1 -- treaty mentioned in frist paragraph,
way #2 -- is practic if the pueblos were treated as reservation.
as the question, if critreria were the only way to establish reservation, in other words, there is only way #1 -- treaty mentioned in first paragraph
because in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. it implies that the Rio Grande pueblos would not been protected by the critretia in the treaty as mentioned in first paragraph, then we can get that the pueblos.


So C is the answer.


BTW, if no treaty ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations, Does it mean the federal government would not obtain the water right ? did i miss something ?

Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, MagooshExpert Carolyn,
sayantanc2
VeritasPrepKarishma, please join.

Thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Jul 2018
Posts: 3
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2018, 22:54
Can anyone explain number 5?? Got that wrong....

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2105
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2018, 11:41
Yeshoda wrote:
Can anyone explain number 5?? Got that wrong....

Here's #5 again:

Quote:
5. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38–42 ("This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine."), and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 10–20 ("Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes")?

Here's what we know about these highlighted court cases:

  • Winters v. US took place in 1908. This decision established three criteria that courts can use to preserve water rights in the interest of American Indian tribes. Why exactly does this matter? Well, the author brings up this case in paragraph 1 because it shows how the Court protects water rights for American Indians even if those rights aren't legally stated.
  • Arizona v. CA took place in 1963. This decision indicated that the way that a federal reservation is created doesn't affect how "the Winters doctrine" is applied to it. Why does this matter? The author brings up this case because it buttresses -- author's words, not mine :-D -- the "pragmatic approach" of the Winters doctrine. Arizona v. CA moved that pragmatic approach beyond the explicit criteria that were stated in Winters v US. This fits the purpose of paragraph 2, which is to show how the Winters doctrine has been used to establish water rights for American Indians, even when the waters were not part of a legally defined reservation.

So Winters v. US created the doctrine, while Arizona v. CA expanded that doctrine. Let's start eliminating answer choices that drift away from our understanding of the passage:

Quote:
(A) Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.

Arizona v. California absolutely did not abolish or compete with the Winters doctrine. Eliminate (A).

Quote:
(B) Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.

This sounds pretty good! Arizona v. California, brought the Rio Grande pueblo Indians under the definition of reservation covered by the Winters doctrine, even though the Rio Grande pueblos were never legally declared a federal reservation. Let's keep it around.

Quote:
(C) Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.

The author does not present Arizona v. California as an exception to the three criteria from Winters v. US, let alone the sole exception. Nothing the author says supports this reason for bringing up Arizona V. California, so we'll eliminate (C).

Quote:
(D) Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.

In fact, we know that the opposite is true! Arizona v. California did refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas this decision established that the Winters doctrine can be applied to the Rio Grande pueblos. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.

Did Arizona v. California apply the Winters doctrine criteria only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations? No. Arizona v. California, like Winters v. US, dealt with lands that the federal government intended to treat as reservations. These could be legally established reservations. They could also be non-federal lands that were nonetheless understood to be American Indian reservations, like the Rio Grande pueblos. This answer choice mixes up the classifications and gives us a very narrow interpretation with the word "only," so we'll eliminate (E) as well.

That's why choice (B) is the best answer to question #5. I hope this helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2105
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2018, 11:57
zoezhuyan wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
pikolo2510 wrote:
Thanks GMATNinja

I got the below question wrong. Can you help to explain this question?

Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

This is actually question #2 in this thread, referring to the following criteria:

Quote:
Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

The Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from federal public lands ("the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands"), so the second criteria would not apply. Also, the pueblos were never established as a reservation, so the third criteria would not apply. Thus, according to those criteria alone, the courts would NOT be able to find federal rights to reserve the waters of the Rio Grande pueblos (since not all three criteria are satisfied).

Establishing water rights for the pueblos required something beyond those three criteria: "What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States." A legal basis for the water rights of the pueblos only exists if this "pragmatic approach" is upheld by the courts. If we only use the three criteria referred to in this question, there is no legal basis.

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.


Hi GMATNinja,
would you please confirm my reasoning is solid?
ffrom the pasage, water right could be obtained by two ways,
way #1 -- treaty mentioned in frist paragraph,
way #2 -- is practic if the pueblos were treated as reservation.
as the question, if critreria were the only way to establish reservation, in other words, there is only way #1 -- treaty mentioned in first paragraph
because in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. it implies that the Rio Grande pueblos would not been protected by the critretia in the treaty as mentioned in first paragraph, then we can get that the pueblos.


So C is the answer.

You have the right idea, but the "treaty" you're referring to should not be the focus. This treaty was part of Winters v. US, but the author mentions this treaty and this case to show us a bigger point: the Court does not treat legal agreements (such as treaties) as the sole basis for reserving water rights.

Also remember that this question asks us to consider the three criteria listed, so we should stay focused on those criteria.

zoezhuyan wrote:
BTW, if no treaty ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations, Does it mean the federal government would not obtain the water right ? did i miss something ?

Paragraph 2 tells us that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally made part of federal public lands by any kind of law (treaty or otherwise):

Quote:
...the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.

Again, the reason the author mentions this is to show that the Winters Doctrine doesn't require explicit legal permission to fulfill the intention of protecting American Indian rights. The author's purpose is to show us how the Court has used this doctrine to take a more pragmatic approach to reserve water rights for American Indians.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 303
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE: General Management (Other)
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2018, 18:25

Official Explanations



1. According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation?
A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.

Supporting ideas
This question requires recognizing information that is explicitly stated in the passage. In the first sentence, the passage states that the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was established by treaty. The following sentence begins by stating that this treaty did not mention water rights (lines 4-5); in other words, the right to use the water flowing through the reservation was not established by treaty.
A. Although the Supreme Court ruled on water rights for the reservation established by the treaty, there is no evidence in the passage that the treaty itself was ever challenged in the Supreme Court.
B. Although the Winters case resulted in water rights for the reservation established by the treaty, there is no evidence in the passage that the treaty was ever rescinded.
C. The passage does not mention American Indians’ traditional resource use as being tied to the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation.
D. Correct. The passage states explicitly that the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation did not mention the right to use water flowing through the reservation.
E. The passage does not mention the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation or the treaty that established it in relation to Arizona v. California.
The correct answer is D.

2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 8–17 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reservewater for a particular purpose.

Inference
Answering this question requires making an inference based on information given in the passage. The question focuses on lines 8-17, where the passage provides a summary of the criteria used by the U.S. courts to establish water rights. The passage then explains that the Rio Grande pueblos used other means to establish water rights, noting that what constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition (lines 34–36). This strongly implies that establishing water rights for the Rio Grande pueblos required reference to legal language not contained in the criteria described in lines 8-17.
A. Since the passage says that decisions setting the criteria in lines 8-17 cited the Winters case—which gave water rights to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation—one can infer that the Fort Belknap reservation met all of those criteria.
B. The criteria in lines 8-17 do not touch on specific dates of the transfer of sovereignty over particular lands.
C. Correct. The passage demonstrates that for the Rio Grande pueblos, it was necessary to establish water rights based on criteria not contained in lines 8-17
D. The criteria described in lines 8-17 are not specific only to lands reserved for American Indians.
E. The passage illustrates that Winters established water rights in the absence of any explicit mention of water rights in the treaty.
The correct answer is C.

3. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 32-35, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 8-17?
A. Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.
B. Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.
C. Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.
D. Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
E. Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.
Inference
This question requires inferring how one part of the passage bears on another part of the passage. The two parts referred to are the criteria described in lines 8-17 and Arizona v. California, which is referred to in lines 32-35. Arizona v. California shows that the establishment of water rights need not be tied to any previous legal definition of reservation lands but may be tied to the U.S. government’s practice merely of treating the land as reserved for American Indians. The criteria described in lines 8-17 apply to situations in which the land in question has been legally identified as reservation land. So Arizona v. California broadened the scope of Winters in establishing water rights.
A. The passage illustrates that Arizona v. California does not supersede or deny any of the criteria in lines 8-17
B. Correct. The passage suggests that practice and not legal definition allows Winters to be applied to situations not covered by the criteria in lines 8-17
C. In stating that some American Indian tribes have also established water rights by means other than the criteria in lines 10–20, the first sentence of the second paragraph makes clear that Arizona v.California is not the sole exception to the criteria.
D. The passage states that Arizona v. California does refer to Winters.
E. The passage illustrates that Arizona v. California was directly relevant to the Pueblo Indians’ water rights.
The correct answer is B.

4. The “pragmatic approach” mentioned in lines 37–38 of the passage is best defined as one that
A. grants recognition to reservations that were never formally established but that have traditionally been treated as such
B. determines the water rights of all citizens in a particular region by examining the actual history of water usage in that region
C. gives federal courts the right to reserve water along with land even when it is clear that the government originally intended to reserve only the land
D. bases the decision to recognize the legal rights of a group on the practical effect such a recognition is likely to have on other citizens
E. dictates that courts ignore precedents set by such cases as Winters v. United States in deciding what water rights belong to reserved land
Supporting ideas
This question requires recognizing what a particular phrase in the passage is referring to. The pragmatic approach the question refers to is introduced by the passage as this pragmatic approach. It is therefore necessary to identify which approach the passage has already referred to in this context, which in this case is contained in the sentence just prior to the reference. This sentence states that establishing what is an American Indian reservation is a matter of the U.S. government’s practice and not of any formal, legal definition.
A. Correct. The approach referred to as pragmatic involves establishing American Indian reservations based not on formal law but on the government’s established practice of treating the lands as such.
B. The approach referred to as pragmatic is not specific to establishing water rights.
C. The approach referred to as pragmatic is not specific to establishing water rights.
D. The approach referred to as pragmatic does not refer to balancing the rights of some people with rights of others.
E. The approach referred to as pragmatic is shown to be consistent with and supportive of the rights established by Winters.
The correct answer is A.

5. The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Evaluation
Answering this question involves recognizing how a particular part of the passage functions within thepassage as a whole. The passage illustrates in the first paragraph that Winters was cited in the
establishment of water rights based on a set of criteria that included the formal withdrawal of lands by the government. In the second paragraph, the case of the Rio Grande pueblos is introduced as an example of lands that had never been formally withdrawn by the government, raising the question of whether Winters would still be applicable in such situations. The passage then asserts that the situation of the pueblos has not barred (line 33) the application of Winters.
A. Correct. While the passage affirms the application of Winters to the situation with the pueblos, it recognizes that it may initially appear that Winters does not apply.
B. The passage states explicitly that the United States did gain official sovereignty over pueblo lands in 1848, when they became part of the United States (lines 27–28).
C. The passage states explicitly that the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands (lines 28–30) and takes no stand on the issue of whether particular lands ought to be
considered public lands.
D. While one can infer that the rights of other citizens to use water could be limited by reserving water rights for residents of American Indian lands according to the Winters doctrine, the passage takes no stand on this issue.
E. The passage does not mention the rights of federal courts to claim jurisdiction over particular water rights cases.
The correct answer is A.

6. The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal basis for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations
Main idea
This question requires recognizing the main topic of the passage, which is about the establishment of water rights on American Indian lands. Its intent is to explain or describe, and it does not take sides on any issue.
A. The passage is primarily about establishing water rights, not establishing reservations.
B. Correct. The passage is an explanation of water rights on American Indian lands.
C. The passage describes legal criteria used to establish water rights on American Indian lands but does not take issue with them.
D. The passage does not discuss the earliest date for water rights on American Indian lands.
E. The passage is primarily about establishing water rights, not about types of reservations.
The correct answer is B.

6. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
A. guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v. California
B. abolished by the Winters doctrine
C. deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this
D. guaranteed by federal land-use laws
E. limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians
Inference
Answering this question requires recognizing what the passage implies. The passage illustrates at the beginning of the second paragraph that water rights were granted to Pueblo Indians based on their use of the water in the Rio Grande pueblos prior to U.S. sovereignty. The passage also later states that since the Winters doctrine applies, the water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848 (lines 42–44), which implies that the water rights of citizens other than Pueblo Indians are limited.
A. The passage illustrates that Arizona v. California reinforced the water rights of citizens residing on American Indian reservations; it does not imply a precedent ensuring water rights for other citizens.
B. The passage states that the water rights of citizens other than Pueblo Indians are lower in priority, not abolished altogether.
C. The passage does not mention that different water rights have been defined by different treaties.
D. The passage does not mention that the water rights of citizens other than Pueblo Indians are guaranteed on pueblo lands.
E. Correct. The passage states that the water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights, which thereby limits the rights of those citizens.
The correct answer is E.
_________________

Hit the the kudos button if you like the post



Thanks

GMAT Club Bot
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri &nbs [#permalink] 26 Oct 2018, 18:25

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 35 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.