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

It is currently 17 Oct 2019, 08:34

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

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

Find Similar Topics 
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2857
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 Jan 2019, 17:16
Xinxinzhang wrote:
Can someone explain how they got to the answer in question 5

Full explanation is available here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-winters-v ... l#p2138203. Always good to check the thread before you ask. :)
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2019
Posts: 2
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jan 2019, 17:26
Thanks.

"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."

Doesn't the first phrase mean that Arizona vs Cali supports the application of Winters doctrine. The second phrase confuses me because it seems to suggest that in the case a federal reservation is created, Winters can be applied again. If a reservation has already been created, why is Winters being used again to create a reservation?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2857
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 08 Feb 2019, 00:00
Xinxinzhang wrote:
Thanks.

"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."

Doesn't the first phrase mean that Arizona vs Cali supports the application of Winters doctrine. The second phrase confuses me because it seems to suggest that in the case a federal reservation is created, Winters can be applied again. If a reservation has already been created, why is Winters being used again to create a reservation?

Let's break down the sentence in question:
Quote:
"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."

"This pragmatic approach" refers to the preceding sentence: "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." In other words, it is pragmatic to define a piece of land as a reservation based on how the land has been treated in practice, rather than just by legal definition.

The pragmatic approach described above is buttressed (or supported) by a court case, Arizona vs. California. In this case, "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." This means that the Winters doctrine can be applied to a piece of land that became a reservation through legal rulings, through its historical treatment as a reservation, or by any other means.

Let me address this question specifically:
Quote:
The second phrase confuses me because it seems to suggest that in the case a federal reservation is created, Winters can be applied again. If a reservation has already been created, why is Winters being used again to create a reservation?

The Winters doctrine did not create any reservations -- it merely established that an existing reservation had the "right to use waters flowing through or adjacent" to the land. It established this right despite the fact that water was not discussed in the original treaty to create the reservation. According to the passage, later court cases expanded the Winters doctrine to apply to more diverse situations.

Arizona vs. California was another of these cases that applied the Winters doctrine to a broader range of situations than did the Winters Vs. United States case. That's why (B) is the best answer choice for question #5.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 06 Mar 2018
Posts: 69
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q47 V27
GRE 1: Q160 V150
GPA: 2.7
CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2019, 23:27
Can someone help me to understand Que 2 ?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2857
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 Jul 2019, 20:12
prags1989 wrote:
Can someone help me to understand Que 2 ?

Please review this post, and let us know if you have any follow-up questions.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: SC & CR Fundamentals | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset | Series 3: Word Problem Bootcamp + Next-Level SC & CR

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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

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; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 21
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2019, 22:53
what's the level of this passage? seems really confusing but managed 5/8 out in 14:21. 1 and 7 seemed confusing for me,4 was just a silly mistake for me.
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Posts: 509
Location: United States (KS)
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jul 2019, 16:37
GMATNinja wrote:
adkikani wrote:
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.

As recommended in the Ultimate RC Guide for Beginners (click here for a full list of Experts’ Topics of the Week), stop at the end of each paragraph, and ask yourself WHY the author has written the paragraph.

The first paragraph is a bit daunting (the 3rd sentence is 8 lines long!). Rather than getting stuck in the details, think about why that paragraph is there. Is it simply to tell us about the Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States (1908)? No, the larger purpose of the paragraph is to tell us that, CITING Winters v US, later decisions established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if certain criteria are met. In other words, the author wants us to realize that the Winters v US case was an important precedent for later cases involving federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes.

As for the second paragraph, is the main purpose to educate readers on the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians? Or to tell us about the Arizona v. California (1963) decision? No, these examples serve a larger purpose, which is to show that the Winters doctrine has been used to establish water rights even when the waters were not part of a legally defined reservation. In other words, as long as an area was TREATED like a reservation in practice, the courts can consider that area a reservation and thus apply the Winters doctrine to reserve water for particular purposes.

The main purpose of the passage is not to tell us about specific court decisions. Rather, taken together, the two paragraphs are meant to tell us about the legal water rights of American Indian tribes.

See if that analysis helps you tackle the questions!


It is an Old post and may be it doesn't matter any more but I will go ahead and mention it anyway. I read the passage and attempted Question 1 and got it wrong. Around 3 minutes. Scrolled down (I know I should not have done this) and found this post to be the first. read it tried to understand it. Went back to the passage and got all next 7 questions right. It is unbelievable. What I am trying to say here may be I am just reading and not comprehending and the section is RC not just R. If I can develop the habit just like what GMATNinja just did here, I will nail it.

Thank you!
_________________
“Practice is the hardest part of learning, and training is the essence of transformation.” ― Ann Voskamp
Software Tester currently in USA ( ;-) )
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Sep 2019
Posts: 6
CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2019, 17:29
I finished the OG and this is one of the hardest text I have ever read. I don't understand how are these questions considered medium
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri   [#permalink] 25 Sep 2019, 17:29

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 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  





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