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

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

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

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

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

See if that analysis helps you tackle the questions!

4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(E) point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations

This is actually question #2 in this thread, referring to the following criteria:


The Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from federal public lands ("the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands"), so the second criteria would not apply.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.

This question threw me off - I was certain it couldn't be C because the criteria were relevant to Winters, and Winters never dealt with the Rio Grande pueblos... Can you provide further explanation as to why we can apply the criteria to the Rio Grande pueblos?

Can someone explain question number #8?

I chose (C) and got it wrong.

The passage talks about the criteria in line 14-20, why not C?

Can someone explain question number #8?

I chose (C) and got it wrong.

The passage talks about the criteria in line 14-20, why not C?

By far one of the toughest RCs (as a whole, including the passage and the questions) I've ever solved.

15 minutes 38 seconds, all correct.

Dear Sajjad1994, what are the levels of questions?

Hi Maldonado

This is not an official difficulty levels rather just a rough idea based on the timer states.

Question #1: 700
Question #2: 700
Question #3: 600-650
Question #4: 650
Question #5: 650
Question #6: 600
Question #7: 650-700
Question #8: 650-700

Thank you