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

It is currently 17 Aug 2018, 02:54

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

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, 23:17
1
Q8: The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?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,
BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 471
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, 07:59
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: 1897
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, 20:51
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!) | GMAT blog | 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 and @GMATNinjaTwo 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: 1322
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, 01:32
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/

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 42
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, 09:13
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: 1897
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 21 Apr 2018, 11:03
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 tackled 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!) | GMAT blog | 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 and @GMATNinjaTwo 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: 9
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, 01:50
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: 88
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2018, 00:49
carcass
GMATNinja
mikemcgarry
egmat
hazelnut
Can you please explain Q7 and Q2. ?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Oct 2017
Posts: 251
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, 05:03
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: 288
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2018, 00:19
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
>_~
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri &nbs [#permalink] 22 Jul 2018, 00:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 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  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.