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

 It is currently 20 Feb 2019, 12:02

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

February 20, 2019

February 20, 2019

08:00 PM EST

09:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. Wednesday, February 20th at 8 PM EST

February 21, 2019

February 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Kick off your 2019 GMAT prep with a free 7-day boot camp that includes free online lessons, webinars, and a full GMAT course access. Limited for the first 99 registrants! Feb. 21st until the 27th.

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

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

### Show Tags

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Q8: The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?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
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1299
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 510
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2293
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

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

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

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
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1321
Location: Malaysia
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

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."

Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 90
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 620 Q43 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2293
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

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

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

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
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

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.

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
Joined: 24 Mar 2018
Posts: 209
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2018, 23:49
carcass
GMATNinja
mikemcgarry
egmat
hazelnut
Can you please explain Q7 and Q2. ?
Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2017
Posts: 247
GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V41
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

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)

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 251
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.

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

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

### Show Tags

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

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2293
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

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 -- 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

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

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
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2293
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

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.

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

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

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
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 466
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
_________________

Hit the the kudos button if you like the post

Verbal Question Banks:-
1.Collection of ALL 775 Verbal GMATPREP Questions 2.Aristotle RC-99 The Definitive RC Guide 3.Aristotle SC Grail 4.Vocabulary List 5.Kaplan 800 Advance Studies

MBA Resources:-
1.Top 25 US MBA Application Fees 2018-2019 2.Top 20 US MBA Tuition Fees 2018-2019

Thanks

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2018
Posts: 110
Location: United States (MA)
GMAT 1: 560 Q39 V28
GMAT 2: 670 Q48 V34
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2018, 12:28
Really good question... Took me 10min and 17sec and got 7/7 correct...

But I spent more than 3min reading the passage and understanding what is actually going on...
I noticed that when I read carefully it really pays off! I know there are a lot of different strategies out there for RC, but one should not forget careful reading...

So many times it paid off to spent some extra time on reading and actually understanding what the purpose of each paragraph and of the whole passage is

For people having difficulties I can only encourage you to try careful reading on some questions and see if it pays off...

Hope it helps some people out there!
_________________

Flashcards Quant + Verbal:https://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-flashcards-108651.html
Thursdays with Ron:https://gmatclub.com/forum/manhattan-s-thursdays-with-ron-consolidated-video-index-223612.html#p2138753

Senior RC Moderator
Status: Preparing GMAT
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 2244
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.39
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2018, 05:47
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.
Passage: Water Rights

Question: Inference–Rio Grande

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 question asks why the author made a particular choice when writing a certain, small section of the passage. Therefore, this is an Inference question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The Rio Grande pueblos are described in the second paragraph. Skim this paragraph and reread the part of it that deals with the formal status of the pueblos.

“Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands…this fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.”

Also, check your passage map to remind yourself of the purpose of the Rio Grande example.

The Rio Grande pueblos are discussed in the second paragraph. This paragraph discusses ways in which certain tribes established water rights even if the Winters doctrine did not directly apply. The Rio Grande pueblos are one example of this. Note that the Winters criteria, described in the first paragraph, only mentions federal lands. By mentioning the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were not defined as federal land, the author explains why the Winters criteria did not directly apply to them.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) CORRECT. By citing this fact, the author establishes that the three criteria of the Winters doctrine—which are listed in the previous paragraph—did not directly apply to the Rio Grande pueblos. By establishing this, the author can use the Rio Grande pueblos as an example of a situation in which applying the Winters criteria was a complex issue.

(B) The passage states that the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848...they at that time became part of the United States. This does imply that the United States never formally made the Rio Grande pueblos into federal land. However, the passage does not attempt to define sovereignty or argue about whether the United States actually acquired it.

(C) It's true that the Winters doctrine applies to federal lands, but the argument is about whether it should also apply to the Rio Grande pueblos, regardless of their formal status as federal lands. The author also does not make this argument herself, but simply describes it.

(D) The author treats the issues in this passage neutrally, describing them rather than supporting any particular side. Also, the effect of Winters on citizens other than American Indians is not mentioned in the passage, which deals specifically with water rights on American Indian reservations.

(E) The passage does mention that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the water-rights cases. However, the author only discusses the outcomes of the cases and their applications, not whether it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to handle them.

1. 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

2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 [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.] 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 reserve water for a particular purpose.

3. 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.
(E) It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.

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

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]?

(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.

Passage: Water Rights

Question: Specific Detail–Pragmatic Approach

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 question refers specifically to the meaning of a short phrase in the passage, so this is a Specific Detail question.

Step 2: Find the Support

Reread the lines of the passage in which the “pragmatic approach” is mentioned, and enough of the surrounding text to provide context.

“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.”

The passage mentions this pragmatic approach. This refers to the approach described in the previous sentence. Specifically, the pragmatic approach involves defining a reservation based on considerations other than its formal, legal definition.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) CORRECT. The “pragmatic approach” refers to the description in the preceding sentence of what qualifies as an American Indian reservation. From a pragmatic perspective, since the pueblo lands were always treated as reservations, they were reservations for the purpose of applying the Winters doctrine.

(B) The history of water usage by all citizens in a region is not discussed in the passage. The traditional diversion and use of certain waters is mentioned much earlier in the second paragraph, but this refers specifically to American Indians, not to all citizens.

(C) The language in this answer choice relates to the description of the Winters doctrine in the first paragraph. The first paragraph states that water rights can be reserved if the circumstances reveal that the government intended to reserve water as well, which is the opposite of what is stated in this answer choice. Although the “pragmatic approach” is different from the strict application of the Winters doctrine, it does not differ in how it deals with the government's intent to reserve water. Instead, it deals with the ways in which a reservation can be defined.

(D) The “pragmatic approach” described by the passage deals specifically with American Indian reservations, not with the legal rights of all groups. This answer choice is too general.

(E) The Rio Grande case did not involve ignoring the Winters doctrine. Rather, it involved applying it to a situation in which it might not apply under a strict interpretation.

6. 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
(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

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

There is an issue with this passege, Questions are not properly formatted and are misplaced, moderators kindly check into it.

Thanks
_________________

New Project RC Butler 2019 - Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday
Final days of the GMAT Exam? => All GMAT Flashcards.
This Post Helps = Press +1 Kudos
Best of Luck on the GMAT!!

Intern
Joined: 20 Jan 2019
Posts: 2
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2019, 15:59
Can someone explain how they got to the answer in question 5
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2293
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

24 Jan 2019, 16:16
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 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

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

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
Joined: 20 Jan 2019
Posts: 2
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2019, 16:26
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?
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri   [#permalink] 24 Jan 2019, 16:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 41 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by