It is currently 22 Aug 2017, 15:36

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

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

Customized
for You

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

Track
Your Progress

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

Practice
Pays

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

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

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10191

Kudos [?]: 248 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Nov 2014, 04:38
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 248 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 38

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
Reviews Badge
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2014, 11:05
ayushgupta1989@gmail.com wrote:
Worked through it while I was solving RC passages from OG 2015 (q56-q62). I think I died a little inside after solving this one. 2/7 :((
Here I was thinking RC is my strongest suit among all the verbal topics.


Same here mate. I got a very similar RC in my real GMAT but the topic was psychology,and boy I knew the moment I saw it that this will be my downfall. I got the same feeling solving this one, and got 2/7 correct as well. I can just hope not to see something similar on my next attempt.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 38

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 31

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2015, 22:09
Some passages just knock you off and this was one of those. Even after rereading, I could hardly get everything that was happening in the passage. If anyone can guide how to handle such passages it'd be very helpful.
_________________

I am not an expert, so please CORRECT me if I am wrong

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 31

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 24

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2015, 04:38
By far the toughest RC I have ever seen. Will probably have to spend one hour on review. Crazy passage. But I actually think I would perform better on topics like that on the real GMAT. Doing this at home with a bit comfortable and relaxed approach is the worst approach possible. Too tough, so one really has to focus all his energy in this one.

Great lesson and glad to see I wasn't the only one struggling :)

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 24

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 94

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Dec 2015, 08:10
hey folks, I got a few answers wrong and truly I'm shocked :x :shock: , coz thats never happen!

So wanted to know is the source and which category is this?? Like is it humanities or legal stuff ... thats kinda.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 94

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Dec 2014
Posts: 35

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 79

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2016, 11:04
abhijit_sen wrote:
This was one of the most toughest RCs, I ever had. Pretty tough at least for me. Below mentioned are my answers, please confirm the OAs.

E
E
A or D. I am more inclined towards A.
B


Hi Experts,
please help me understand the passage.
I am not getting what the passage is trying to convey.

And how Arizona v. California related to entire passage, not getting this pls pls help.
I read OE still not getting meaning.
Thanks & regards,
Sheshadri

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 79

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 56

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 14

Reviews Badge
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2016, 14:01
[quote="vksunder"][box_out]
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.
[box_in]


Hi Egmat,

I found this passage extremely tough. Below is my understanding of the passage. Please help me if you spot any gaps in my understanding and then I can pose my doubts regarding questions:

Para 1: Talks about a specific legal case of W Vs U.S where a treaty allowed the use of water to Indians since the land rights resided with them. The logic cited was the land would be useless without the water. This case was used as the basis for further cases where if any of the following 3 conditions were met the court could decide the fed rights to reserve water:
1. The land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction,
(2) the land is no longer publicly available but under the jurisdiction of the feds
(3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation as in the W Vs U.S case

Summary: The passage cites a particular winters case and then cites how this case was used as basis for other rulings of water rights.

Para 2: An exception is cited of how water laws for a particular land were made without falling into the above 3 criterias listed by courts. This land wasn't part of the fed govt. legally and yet the winters doctrine was applicable to this. Eg of pueblos land is cited.
The author supports the application of winters doictrine by saying that despite no treaty formally this piece of land was treated as a reservation and hence the doctrine should be applicable.
He further provides supports for the above by giving an example of another case Arizona v. California (1963) which further supports the fact that it doesn't matter wether the pueblos land is considered a reservation due to treaty or due to practical usage of the land. Winters doctrine will still be applicable.

Therefore as per the winters doctrine, pueblo indians have rights for water usage since the time the treaty for land rights was conferred to them.

Summary: Exceptions were cited of not falling under fed jurisdiction and yet rules made as per the applicability of winters doctrine.

MP: How the feds decides the water rights in U.S based on winters case in 1908.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 14

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 08 Dec 2015
Posts: 321

Kudos [?]: 25 [1] , given: 36

GMAT 1: 600 Q44 V27
Reviews Badge
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2016, 15:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
Omg, took me 8 min, got 2 Qs correct and honestly, I didn't understand a flying duck about the passage...

Kudos [?]: 25 [1] , given: 36

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 650

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 36

GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jun 2016, 21:19
5/6
6 Minutes

Good passage.
It helped that I was reading famous court cases online on wiki a few days before. Made the terms just a tad easier.
Careless reading made me choose incorrect option in first question. I bypassed the correct option as it contains a NOT and then a Negated term.
_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Kudos [?]: 328 [0], given: 36

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2016
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 129

Location: China
Concentration: Finance, Nonprofit
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q51 V31
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.4
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2016, 20:12
passage 4'32-total 14'

vocabulary:
take precedence over=superior to
rescind (vi)=abolish

A
DxC
D
BxA
B
B
E


Cannot understand Q13: The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in hightlight text of the passage is best defined as one that...
A?B?
_________________

It's better to burn out than to fade away.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 129

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2015
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 50 [1] , given: 317

Location: India
Concentration: Finance
Schools: ISB '18 (S)
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 700 Q44 V41
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Reviews Badge
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2016, 10:01
1
This post received
KUDOS
iliavko dont worry you're not alone :(

Kudos [?]: 50 [1] , given: 317

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 0

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
This post received
KUDOS
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,

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 243

GMAT Date: 11-01-2012
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2017, 02:53
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
vksunder wrote:
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.
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
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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A


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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
C


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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
D


Q11: The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace 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
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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
B


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.
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
B


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
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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A


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
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

[Reveal] Spoiler:
E




mikemcgarry , VeritasPrepKarishma , byjus , souvik101990 ...Can any one explain how to do this Monster... I am facing a lot of problems with RC and this one in 15 mins could knock off only two Qs Correct..

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 243

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 477

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 49

Location: India
Schools: Duke '20, Tepper '20
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2017, 09:23
Good passage
Took 11 min 21 sec
A C D B B A E
Took 4 : 10 seconds min to understand the passage . :/ . Need to decrease time.

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 49

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 477

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 49

Location: India
Schools: Duke '20, Tepper '20
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Apr 2017, 09:25
Sunil01 wrote:
abhijit_sen wrote:
This was one of the most toughest RCs, I ever had. Pretty tough at least for me. Below mentioned are my answers, please confirm the OAs.

E
E
A or D. I am more inclined towards A.
B


Hi Experts,
please help me understand the passage.
I am not getting what the passage is trying to convey.

And how Arizona v. California related to entire passage, not getting this pls pls help.
I read OE still not getting meaning.
Thanks & regards,
Sheshadri


It was given as an example - where Arizona buttressed the case i.e. Reinforced. or expanded etc.

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 49

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 7

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 May 2017, 16:43
iliavko wrote:
Omg, took me 8 min, got 2 Qs correct and honestly, I didn't understand a flying duck about the passage...




i got depressed after that :cry: so haaaaard

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 7

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 211

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 114

Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Premium Member
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2017, 17:59
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.

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 114

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri   [#permalink] 07 Jun 2017, 17:59

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 57 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly pulkitaggi 0 24 Jul 2017, 09:13
8 Experts publish their posts in the topic The beginning of what was to become the United States 14101992 6 26 May 2017, 23:46
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held betterscore 0 11 May 2017, 16:43
2 The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly garimavyas 9 24 Jul 2017, 09:13
1 From the Kaplan practice test A 1973 Supreme Court arvindg 6 20 Sep 2014, 09:26
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  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.