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if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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. 1 RC74000-06.01 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 The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?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 RC74000-02.01 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 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. 3 RC74000-01.01 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 74000-07.01 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 RC74000-03.01 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. 6 RC74000-04.01 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 RC74000-08.01 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 8 RC74000-05.01 8. It can be inferred from the passage that the Winters doctrine has been used to establish which of the following? (A) A rule that the government may reserve water only by explicit treaty or agreement (B) A legal distinction between federal lands reserved for American Indians and federal lands reserved for other purposes (C) Criteria governing when the federal government may set land aside for a particular purpose (D) The special status of American Indian tribes' rights to reserved land (E) The federal right to reserve water implicitly as well as explicitly under certain conditions 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. Step 3: Predict an Answer 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.

Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 01:05

It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 01:05

Toolkit

Reading Comprehension (RC)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Nov 19
GMAT 705 in 30 days: Best Study Strategy for Working Professionals
12:30 PM EST
-
01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 20
GMAT 675 with 96th percentile in DI- Kamakshi’s Winning Strategy
01:30 PM EST
-
02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 22
GMAT RC Masterclass
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Nov 23
Conquer Algebra on the GMAT Focus Edition
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Nov 24
FREE Focus Edition Mock!
07:00 PM PST
-
08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 25
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
10:00 AM EST
-
11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2 3

adgarg

Joined: 02 Feb 2023

Last visit: 21 Dec 2024

Posts: 28

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 31

Location: India

Posts: 28

Kudos: 3

01 Jun 2024, 08:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja - can you please explain Q1, choice A. Getting confused by what does it mean. I thought choice B is correct, because pueblos never left that land

Legenddary1234

Joined: 13 Nov 2022

Last visit: 03 Oct 2024

Posts: 47

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 19

Location: India

Concentration: Economics, Technology

GPA: 3.3

Posts: 47

Kudos: 41

16 Jun 2024, 03:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

Was doing it for the first decent question and got 7/8 correct except for the below one

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

GMATNinja can you please help me with this?? I marked B and was pretty sure about his one how we are saying this is a general appraoch and not realted to just water treaty

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,445

Own Kudos:

69,781

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,445

Kudos: 69,781

[1]

26 Jun 2024, 09:22

Kudos

Bookmarks

Question 1

adgarg

GMATNinja - can you please explain Q1, choice A. Getting confused by what does it mean. I thought choice B is correct, because pueblos never left that land

Here's the key portion of the passage:

Quote:

... 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.

Choice (B) is incorrect because of the part in bold -- the United States DID acquire sovereignty over the lands.

But those pueblo lands were never formally designated as reservations. They've just "always been treated as reservations by the United States." That's important because the Winters case involved land that WAS formally designated as a reservation (by a treaty). One might argue that the Winters case doesn't apply to the pueblo lands because of that key difference, and that's why choice (A) fits.

But in the last paragraph, the author explains that it doesn't matter whether the land was formally established as a reservation or is simply a de facto reservation. As long as it is, in practice, TREATED as a reservation, the Winters doctrine applies.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,445

Own Kudos:

69,781

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,445

Kudos: 69,781

[1]

26 Jun 2024, 13:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

Question 6

Legenddary1234

Was doing it for the first decent question and got 7/8 correct except for the below one

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

GMATNinja can you please help me with this?? I marked B and was pretty sure about his one how we are saying this is a general appraoch and not realted to just water treaty

First of all, great job getting 7 out of 8 right! It's really important to remember that you absolutely do NOT need to get EVERY question right in order to get a great score on the GMAT. So keep doing whatever you're doing.

That said, (B) is wrong because this approach is NOT described as the way in which water rights of ALL citizens is determined.

Yes, in this particular case, the approach is applied to a question of water rights. But in general, this approach is used to answer the question of "what constitutes an American Indian reservation?" so (A) is a better choice.

For more on the "pragmatic approach" check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-winters-v ... l#p2222740

Vikas2017

Joined: 27 May 2017

Last visit: 08 Sep 2024

Posts: 1

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 1

Kudos: 0

01 Sep 2024, 19:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

Even after understanding the passage when solving the question i someway got delinked from the passage and end up being
confused again. i simply couldn't understand 2 question. how to stay connected with understanding of the passage?

Nikhil17bhatt

Joined: 25 Aug 2018

Last visit: 31 May 2025

Posts: 70

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 14

Posts: 70

Kudos: 75

12 Oct 2024, 00:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

It took me 24 mins but got all 8/8 though I think the time is bit on the higher side, but when I see the difficulty and number of questions like 3 mins per question.. what should be an ideal time to complete this passage somewhere around 15 mins ?
GMATNinja

AIQ

Joined: 06 Aug 2024

Last visit: 08 Jan 2025

Posts: 6

Given Kudos: 24

Posts: 6

Kudos: 0

13 Oct 2024, 01:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi GMATNinja,

For #2, could you verify my reasoning?

Quote:

(A) The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.

-> This cannot be true because the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation meets criterion (3): "intended to." The Court ruled that when the federal government created the reservation, it intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Is this the right way to dismiss this answer choice? The official explanation only mentions that since the criteria are based on the Winters v. United States ruling, all apply to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. I'm not entirely sure what that means.

Quote:

(B) Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.

-> This might try to trick us into referring to the last line of the article (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), but it has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

-> Correct. in line with your previous explanations.

Quote:

(D) Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.

-> "other than American Indian reservations" -> Out of scope.

Quote:

(E) Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

-> "Intended to," therefore, false.

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,445

Own Kudos:

69,781

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,445

Kudos: 69,781

[1]

30 Oct 2024, 12:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

AIQ

Hi [url=https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&un=GMATNinja%5D%5Bb%5DGMATNinja%5B/b%5D%5B/url%5D,

For #2, could you verify my reasoning?

Quote:

The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.

Quote:

Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.

Quote:

There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.

-> Correct. in line with your previous explanations.

Quote:

Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.

-> "other than American Indian reservations" -> Out of scope.

Quote:

Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

-> "Intended to," therefore, false.

Your reasoning looks valid to me. For (A), you're absolutely right that the Fort Berthold people would be covered under the third provision. I guess you could also argue that it's covered under the first two -- if a federal treaty established the reservation, it sounds as though it's under federal jurisdiction and therefore also no longer available for private use.

But really, as long as one of the provisions covers Fort Berthold, (A) can't be right, so there's no reason to agonize here over legal minutia.

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,445

Own Kudos:

69,781

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,445

Kudos: 69,781

15 Dec 2024, 09:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

Nikhil17bhatt

That would leave you with only 21 minutes to complete the remaining 15 verbal questions, if it were an actual test. That's not ideal.

We always expect the first question of an RC passage to take longer than average, since you need time to read and think about the passage. Conversely, we expect the times on subsequent questions to be BELOW average, since (hopefully!) you've already invested ample time in reading and processing the passage.

In this case, you saw EIGHT questions on the same passage, and we'd expect seven of those to have below average times. In other words, even if you did spend a bit too long going through the passage, your average time per question on this passage should have decreased with each subsequent question. Since that was not the case, you likely spent too long on at least a couple of the questions.

As we've said before, good timing comes from good technique, not the other way around. Bad things tend to happen when test-takers rush through the passages and questions to hit specific timing milestones.

So rather than asking, "What's an ideal time?", ask yourself, "Did I spend way too long on a particular question or two? Did I let myself get sucked into a battle with a question that stumped me?" If so, then you need to work on your test-taking habits -- specifically, letting go and moving on when you're stumped. If you can do that, your times will naturally improve.

For more on that, check out the following resources:

How to Manage Time on an Adaptive Test Like the GMAT (short video)
Free, Complete GMAT Focus & EA Reading Comprehension Video Course
RC guide for beginners (article)

licrolicro

Joined: 29 Mar 2025

Last visit: 27 Sep 2025

Posts: 39

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 12

Posts: 39

Kudos: 6

02 Jun 2025, 18:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

So the relationship of these three items is AND, then question 8 should be A, rather than E.

(A) A rule that the government may reserve water only by explicit treaty or agreement
(E) The federal right to reserve water implicitly as well as explicitly under certain conditions

atharwa

Joined: 01 Apr 2025

Last visit: 05 Nov 2025

Posts: 1

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 1

Kudos: 0

05 Jun 2025, 01:40

Kudos

Bookmarks

What is the difference between option C and E for question 7?

GMATNinja

bpdulog

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!

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,445

Own Kudos:

69,781

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,445

Kudos: 69,781

16 Jun 2025, 16:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

Question 7

atharwa

What is the difference between option C and E for question 7?

Choice (C) suggests that the Pueblo Indians only have priority over other citizens when treaties explicitly require this, but the example in the second paragraph illustrates that this is not the case.

The Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights even though there is no explicit treaty requiring this. That priority exists because their land became a de facto reservation when the US acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848.

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,445

Own Kudos:

69,781

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,445

Kudos: 69,781

[1]

16 Jun 2025, 19:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

Question 8

licrolicro

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.

So the relationship of these three items is AND, then question 8 should be A, rather than E.

(A) A rule that the government may reserve water only by explicit treaty or agreement

(E) The federal right to reserve water implicitly as well as explicitly under certain conditions

(A) can't be right because of the example discussed in the second paragraph:

"...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."

The Winters doctrine was applied even though there was no explicit treaty or agreement. Also, note that criteria #2 from the first paragraph was NOT met in this example because "the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands".

Paragraph 1 states that the courts CAN find federal rights to reserve water if those three criteria are met, but that does not mean that this is the ONLY way they can find federal rights to reserve water. That's why the second paragraph starts with, "Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on...".

Meeting those three criteria might be sufficient, but it's not necessary. It's like saying, "You can become a professional basketball player if you are 7 feet tall." That doesn't mean that being 7 feet tall is the ONLY way you can become a professional basketball player.

For more on Question 8, check out these posts:

ChiranjeevSingh

Tutor

Joined: 22 Oct 2012

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 411

Own Kudos:

3,058

[2]

Given Kudos: 154

Status:Private GMAT Tutor

Location: India

Concentration: Economics, Finance

Schools: IIMA (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V85 DI85 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 735 Q90 V85 DI85 Verified score

GMAT Focus 3: 735 Q88 V87 DI84 Verified score

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V168 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: IIMA (A)

GMAT Focus 3: 735 Q88 V87 DI84 Verified score

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V168 Verified score

Posts: 411

Kudos: 3,058

[2]

23 Jun 2025, 07:57

Kudos

Bookmarks

Here's how I read the passage:

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.

Let’s break this sentence down part by part and try to make sense of it the way I processed it while reading:

"In Winters v. United States (1908)"
When I read this, I immediately recognize that it’s referring to a legal case — because legal cases are typically named with one party versus another. It also tells me the year the case was fought: 1908. One party was the U.S. government, and the other was someone named Winters. I don’t know who Winters is yet — just that it’s a legal dispute involving that entity and the United States.

"the Supreme Court held that"
This tells me the case was decided in the Supreme Court. The phrase “held that” means the sentence is going to explain what the Court ruled.

"the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation"
Now the sentence is telling me what the case was about — the right to use certain waters. Which waters? The ones that either flow through the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation or that are adjacent to it. So it’s talking about both types — waters within and waters next to the reservation.
At this point, I try to understand what reservation means. It seems to refer to some area of land, because the water is said to be flowing “through” or “adjacent to” it. So I think: the reservation is a specific area or place.

"was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation."
This is the part where the sentence gives the Court’s decision: that the right to use those waters was reserved for American Indians. And it says this right came from the treaty that established the reservation.

Now I go back to think more carefully about the word reservation. My initial understanding was that it referred to a specific location. But that doesn't quite make sense in this context — because the sentence says the reservation was established by a treaty. That makes me think the word reservation might not just be about a place, but about the act of reserving land. That seems to fit better here.

Putting it all together literally:
The sentence is saying that in the case of Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to use water flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation had been reserved for American Indians — and that this right was granted by the treaty which established (or set aside) the reservation for them.

And then I go a step further:
Beyond just understanding the literal meaning, I also try to make intuitive sense of it. What I gather is this: there was a treaty that reserved an area of land for American Indians. And the Supreme Court said that this treaty didn’t just reserve the land — it also included the right to use the water that flowed through or near that land.

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.

"Although this treaty did not mention water rights,"
As I read this, I understand that the treaty in question — the one mentioned in the previous sentence — did not explicitly mention water rights. That immediately stands out to me, because the first sentence had talked about a Supreme Court ruling that said water rights were reserved for American Indians by this very treaty. So now I put two and two together: the treaty didn’t directly talk about water rights, but the ruling still concluded that water rights were included. This makes sense to me. After all, if the treaty had explicitly included water rights, there probably wouldn’t have been any need for the case to go to court. The fact that the case existed, and that the court ruled on this issue, tells me that the treaty was silent on water rights — and yet, the court still chose to interpret it as if those rights had been included.

So I understand this as the court treating the water rights as being implicitly reserved, even though they weren’t mentioned outright.

"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."

This entire part I could read in one go — it flowed easily for me, probably because I had already made the effort to understand the context in the previous sentence.
Here, the Court is giving its reasoning. It’s saying that when the federal government created the reservation, its intention was to deal fairly with American Indians. And the way to deal fairly was to preserve the water for them. Why? Because without the water, the land they were given would have been useless. That would clearly be unfair. So the logic goes: even though the treaty didn’t say anything about water, the government must have intended to reserve water rights — because not reserving them would have made the entire act of giving the land meaningless.

So this sentence explains the rationale behind the ruling mentioned in the first sentence. It tells us why the Court interpreted the treaty the way it did — not because of what was written, but because of what must have been intended, based on the principle of fairness.

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.

"Later decisions, citing Winters, established that"
This tells me we’re now talking about court decisions that came after the Winters case. These later decisions cited Winters — not the person or party, but the Winters case itself. So they’re building upon or using that case as a reference. And these decisions established something — they clarified or set a precedent for how courts should think about certain issues going forward.

"courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if"
What did they establish? That courts can find federal rights — meaning, rights of the federal government — to reserve water for specific purposes, if certain conditions are met. So the sentence is now going to list those conditions.

First condition:
"(1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction"
This means that the land involved — most likely the land related to the water we’re talking about — is part of a region (an enclave) where the federal government has exclusive control. That’s the literal meaning.

But I always go beyond just literal meaning. I try to understand why this condition would make sense. And it does: if we’re saying the federal government has a right to reserve water, then it only makes sense if the land itself is under federal control. If the land isn’t under the federal government, then why would it have any authority to reserve the water? So the condition logically supports the idea of federal rights.

Second condition:
"(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"
This was a bit harder at first because I wasn’t sure what federal public lands meant. But the sentence gives a helpful explanation: these are lands that are available for private use under federal law. So if land is withdrawn from that stock, it means it’s no longer available for private use. Then it says this land is set aside or reserved, meaning it has been specially designated.
So the condition is that the land is not for general or private use anymore — the government has intentionally set it aside. Again, I try to make sense of the condition: the government’s right to reserve water on a certain land would only make sense if the land itself has been reserved. If the land is still open for private use, then it doesn’t really fit the idea that the water on it should be reserved for a specific purpose.

Third condition:
"(3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation."
This final condition is that the circumstances — the context or the situation — should show that the government intended to reserve water, not just land. So this condition is all about intent.
As I read this, I immediately see how it connects to the Winters case we’ve been reading about — because that whole ruling was based on interpreting the government’s intent. The treaty didn’t explicitly mention water rights, but the Court still ruled that the government must have intended to reserve them. So this third condition lines up directly with the reasoning in that case.

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.

"Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts"
Here, I focus especially on the word "also." That word is important — it signals that this sentence is presenting an additional method or path through which water rights have been established. So far, the passage has talked about water rights being recognized through treaties and based on federal intent. This sentence is now introducing another way: some tribes have gone to court and succeeded in getting water rights established.

"based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty."
Now the sentence tells us on what basis these tribes were able to establish water rights. The basis was their traditional practices — specifically, how they diverted and used certain waters before the United States acquired sovereignty over those lands.

I understand this to mean that before the U.S. took control or authority over these areas, some American Indian tribes were already using the water in certain ways. These tribes went to court and argued that, based on those pre-sovereignty practices, they should have recognized water rights. In other words, they’re saying: we were already using this water in meaningful, organized ways before the U.S. government claimed authority here — and that historical use should count as the basis for legal rights.
This is a new way of establishing water rights, one that hasn’t been mentioned earlier in the passage — which is why the word “also” fits perfectly here. It’s expanding the picture of how water rights have been recognized in different contexts.

For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848.

This sentence is giving an example to support the previous one. The previous sentence had introduced a new way some American Indian tribes established water rights — based on their traditional use of water before the U.S. took control of the land. This sentence gives a specific case of that.

It mentions the Rio Grande pueblos — which I take to be a group of people, likely tribes — and says that they were already in existence at the time the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. So this is showing that these tribes were present and likely using land and water before the U.S. claimed authority over that region. That fits with the idea of establishing water rights based on pre-sovereignty use — just as the previous sentence explained.

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.

"Although they at that time became part of the United States,"
This refers to the Rio Grande pueblos — the people mentioned in the previous sentence. It says that they became part of the United States at the time the U.S. acquired sovereignty over New Mexico. The sentence begins with "Although," so I expect a contrast to follow — something that goes against the expectation set by the fact that they became part of the U.S.

"the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands;"
This part tells me that even though the people became part of the U.S., their lands were never formally considered federal public lands. I pause here to think about the relevance of this information.
To make sense of it, I remind myself of the context: this is an example of a different way water rights were established — different from the earlier three-condition framework. In that framework, one of the conditions was that the land must be withdrawn from federal public lands. But here, it says the land was never part of federal public lands to begin with — so how could it have been withdrawn? That tells me these three conditions likely don’t apply here. And yet, water rights might still have been recognized.

I also reflect on the contrast introduced by "Although". I think the contrast is: even though the people became U.S. citizens or subjects, their land never became national property in the usual sense. Typically, when a group becomes part of a country, we might expect their land to be brought under federal jurisdiction — but that didn’t happen here.

"in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations."
This part reinforces the idea that the usual process (described earlier in the passage) did not happen in this case. The sentence says there has never been any formal act — no treaty, statute, or executive order — that designated these pueblo lands as American Indian reservations, or that withdrew them from public lands.

So this confirms what I suspected earlier: the second condition from the earlier framework — about land being withdrawn and reserved — was not satisfied in this case. That helps me understand why this example is being used here: it’s showing that water rights can be recognized even when those earlier conditions are not met. This really is an example of an additional way water rights were established.

This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.

The sentence starts with “however,” so I expect a contrast — and there is one.

The “fact” being referred to is the one from the previous sentence: that no treaty, statute, or executive order ever designated or withdrew the pueblo lands as American Indian reservations — meaning the second condition from the earlier framework was not satisfied in this case.

But despite that, the sentence says this has not barred — i.e., has not prevented — the application of the Winters doctrine.

This aligns with what I had been expecting — that water rights would still be recognized, even though the usual three conditions weren’t met. But there’s something a little surprising here too: I was expecting that maybe a different legal doctrine would apply in this case, since the conditions weren’t satisfied. But the sentence tells me that the Winters doctrine itself — the same one introduced earlier — has been extended or interpreted broadly enough to still apply here. So the doctrine is being used in a more flexible way than I had initially thought.

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.

"What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition,"
This part tells me that whether something is considered an American Indian reservation doesn’t depend strictly on its legal definition, but rather on how it is treated in practice. That’s the key point here — it’s not about whether it’s formally labeled a reservation in law, but about how it has been functionally handled or regarded over time.

"and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States."
This continues from the first part and gives an example of that practice: the pueblos, even though they might not have been legally defined as reservations, have always been treated as such by the U.S. government.

Putting the two parts together, the sentence is saying: we don’t have to rely on a technical legal definition of “reservation” — we can look at how the government has actually treated the land. And in the case of the pueblos, the government has consistently treated them as if they were reservations.

Now, thinking about how this sentence fits into the overall context:

Earlier, the passage had said that the second condition from the three-part test (withdrawal from federal public lands and reservation of land) wasn’t met in this case. But it also said that the Winters doctrine still applies. This sentence helps to explain why. Even though the condition wasn’t literally satisfied — meaning there was no formal legal reservation — it was practically satisfied, because the pueblos were always treated as reservations.

So this sentence shows how the application of the Winters doctrine is based not only on strict legal definitions, but also on how things have worked in actual practice.

This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine.

"This pragmatic approach"

Pragmatic means practical — so this phrase is referring to the practical way of interpreting what qualifies as an American Indian reservation. It connects back to the previous sentence, which said that the definition of a reservation is based on practice, not strict legal terms. So I understand this phrase as referring to that practical, real-world approach — not getting stuck on legal technicalities, but looking at how things have actually been handled.

"is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963),"
This means that the practical approach is supported or reinforced by the case Arizona v. California (1963).

"wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine."
This part tells me what the Supreme Court actually said in that case. It ruled that the way a federal reservation is created — whether it’s through a treaty, a statute, an executive order, or simply by being treated as such — does not impact whether the Winters doctrine can be applied to it.

So putting it all together: the practical approach (relying on how land is treated rather than how it’s legally defined) is supported by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. California, which said that the method of creating a reservation doesn’t determine whether the Winters doctrine applies. That reinforces the idea from the previous sentence — that pueblo lands, even if not legally defined as reservations, can still be considered as such for the purpose of applying water rights under 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.

The sentence begins with “Therefore,” which tells me that this is a conclusion — something being logically drawn from what has been said in the previous sentences.

The conclusion is that the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians take priority over the water rights of other citizens — and this priority is dated from 1848. That’s the key point.

To understand why the year 1848 matters, I connect it back to earlier in the passage: 1848 is the year when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico, where the pueblos are located. The Court is saying that from that moment — when the U.S. took control — these lands must be considered reservations, not necessarily because of a formal legal act, but because they were treated as reservations by the federal government.

So this sentence wraps up the argument by saying: Since the pueblos were treated as reservations from 1848, the Winters doctrine applies from that year, which means their water rights have legal priority going back to that time — ahead of any claims that came later from other citizens.

----- End----

Oh man! This took a lot of time

1 2 3

Moderators:

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

7445 posts

GMATNinjaTwo

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

234 posts

Sajjad1994

GRE Forum Moderator

17289 posts

miag

188 posts

Prep Toolkit

Announcements

Master in Management, Finance, Business Analytics and more Master’s Programs!

Solving 705+ Level MSR Questions with Data Synthesis Skils

Tuesday, Nov 18, 2025
10:30am NY / 3:30pm London / 9pm Mumbai

Live Profile Evaluation Chat Session with ARINGO

Wednesday, November 19, 2025
09:00 am PDT | 10:30 pm IST
Location: GMAT Club Chat

Top GMAT Focus Debriefs

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards