NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 06:33 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 06:33
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

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

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2   3   4 
Tags:
Difficulty: 705-805 Levelx   Humanitiesx   Long Passagex                           
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
mSKR
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1378
Own Kudos [?]: 846 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   26 Apr 2021, 08:00
Quote:
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 The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?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


Hi AndrewN sir

This is one of the toughest passage. I hope you are not busy today :D . I am just worried as this is RC query which you usually don't prefer over CR and SC . Kindly don't take it as burdensome. :please: Please reply at your convenience time. No hurry:)

Relevant passage text
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 [s]within an enclave [/s]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.


//
When I pre-thought this question, I thought that reference to Rio Grande (RG) is to mention that even federal rights were not explicity applicable but it meant to be applicable because of the intention/purpose.
We can get the meaning from the sentence: 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.
It seems even RG was not directly under federal jurisdiction but the water rights seemed to apply to them .
I shortlisted:
Quote:
(A) Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands

I rejected A because later it is mentioned that pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States.. It seems winters doctrine SHOULD APPLY
Quote:
(C) Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands

Winters doctrine can be applied if it is considered as part of federal public lands.

I read the explanations above. I understood all options and no confusion in passage but don't know why I still chose C and rejected A.

I took a long time to understand this passage and was able to get correct 2nd to 8th but missed on 1st.

Your inputs would be fruitful. :)

Thanks AndrewN sir :angel:
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 2287 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   31 Oct 2021, 10:03
Expert Reply
Video solution from Quant Reasoning starts at 0:01:20
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1
User avatar
P
kittle
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2021
Posts: 272
Own Kudos [?]: 115 [0]
Given Kudos: 446
Send PM
CAT Tests
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   27 Nov 2021, 04:44
GMATNinja wrote:
adkikani wrote:
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.

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!



GMATNinja - can you please explain to me what was Winters Doctrine exactly? I am really struggling to figure that out. Thank you.
User avatar
S
trulyness
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 May 2021
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 82 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   12 Mar 2022, 04:33
GMATNinja carcass daagh can you please explain question 7?
User avatar
L
carcass
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4386
Own Kudos [?]: 32882 [0]
Given Kudos: 4455
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   12 Mar 2022, 04:40
Top Contributor
trulyness wrote:
GMATNinja carcass daagh can you please explain question 7?



Above AndrewN already did under the spoiler sir
avatar
S
ag153
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   16 Apr 2022, 04:05
KarishmaB GMATNinja

1. What does the passage mean when it says "citing Winters, the later decisions....."? What is citing winters? Isn't Winters the one oppossing this whole Reservation of water for American Indians and the United States the defendent- so how come those 3 points in favour of reservation a citing of Winters? (I have taken the meaning of 'citing Winters' as 'quoting Winters'). What else does citing mean?

Or does 'citing' mean in response (citing) to Winters, the Supreme court made those 3 points? But then why is it called Winters doctrine in that case if it is actually Supreme court's response to winters?

2. How is the fact that pueblos can be considered a reservation because of practice still come under the application of winters doctrine. Which of the 3 criteria of winters doctrine applies to it?

3. What does this mean: "in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations" and what is its significance in the meaning of the passage and sentence?
avatar
S
ag153
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 16 Apr 2022, 13:58
KarishmaB
GMATNinja

Q4- Why not A

Q5:
C- Why is Arizona v. not an exception to the criteria? It clearly is
E- The fact that it applies to pueblo indicates that Arizona v california was used for lands other than American Indian reservations. WHat is this choice trying ti say and why is it wrong? Also how is Arizona vs california even applying to pueblo- it is just a separate example stated.

Passage: What does it mean?
"i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws"-- what does this mean? What does 'availabe' modify? How can the definition of federal public lands be 'lands available for private use'

Q8- Pls explain this whole question. Also as per choice E, how is it 'explicitly'

Originally posted by ag153 on 16 Apr 2022, 09:39.
Last edited by ag153 on 16 Apr 2022, 13:58, edited 1 time in total.
avatar
S
ag153
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   16 Apr 2022, 13:56
Thanks for your reply

I did actually but for these specific ones, I’m still not clear and I’m not able to get all the explanations. So would probably need a different explanation AndrewN

AndrewN wrote:
ag153 wrote:
Q4- Why not A

Well, ag153, you are welcome to check out my full analysis of every question in an earlier post. I put a lot of time and effort into that one. Perhaps it will help you to some extent.

- Andrew


Posted from my mobile device
avatar
S
ag153
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   17 Apr 2022, 07:40
Thanks AndrewN again for sharing those- I have actually gone through the whole discussion around this and need to still get specific answers to these. In the video for example, only the correct answers have been adressed, not the wrong ones. In most explanations, the choice I am talking about are not explaianed and for some where it is covered are either not by experts or not giving complete clarity. I hope you can understand.
User avatar
B
maelstrom93
Intern
Intern
Joined: 12 Nov 2021
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Send PM
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   17 Apr 2022, 10:34
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?

Not an lawyer or an expert here.
I feel that this question is more of a logical thinking and knowing some US history rather than knowing the meaning of the 3 criterial (like many others, I don't get the meaning behind this).
US founding fathers came to US and declared independent.
But the lands was previously used and owned by the natives.
When the lands were declared statehood, so all the previous rights to use, and whatever rights were passed to the federal government.
Perhaps this explains C.
avatar
S
ag153
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   19 Apr 2022, 12:18
KarishmaB
ag153 wrote:
KarishmaB
GMATNinja

Q4- Why not A

Q5:
C- Why is Arizona v. not an exception to the criteria? It clearly is
E- The fact that it applies to pueblo indicates that Arizona v california was used for lands other than American Indian reservations. WHat is this choice trying ti say and why is it wrong? Also how is Arizona vs california even applying to pueblo- it is just a separate example stated.

Passage: What does it mean?
"i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws"-- what does this mean? What does 'availabe' modify? How can the definition of federal public lands be 'lands available for private use'

Q8- Pls explain this whole question. Also as per choice E, how is it 'explicitly'
avatar
S
ag153
Manager
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]
Given Kudos: 56
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24
GPA: 3.69
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   19 Apr 2022, 12:19
KarishmaB Pls look into it and clarify

ag153 wrote:
KarishmaB GMATNinja

1. What does the passage mean when it says "citing Winters, the later decisions....."? What is citing winters? Isn't Winters the one oppossing this whole Reservation of water for American Indians and the United States the defendent- so how come those 3 points in favour of reservation a citing of Winters? (I have taken the meaning of 'citing Winters' as 'quoting Winters'). What else does citing mean?

Or does 'citing' mean in response (citing) to Winters, the Supreme court made those 3 points? But then why is it called Winters doctrine in that case if it is actually Supreme court's response to winters?

2. How is the fact that pueblos can be considered a reservation because of practice still come under the application of winters doctrine. Which of the 3 criteria of winters doctrine applies to it?

3. What does this mean: "in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations" and what is its significance in the meaning of the passage and sentence?
User avatar
B
Dinesh654
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Status:In learning mode...
Posts: 156
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   25 Apr 2022, 09:02
hello experts,
I took 45 minutes to solve these 8 question and only got 3 correct!
the language is so tough in this passage that it becomes so hard to comprehend!
and it gets harder to retain most of the information
furthermore, the choices itself are so tough to understand and eliminate ?
How can anyone solve this under 10 minutes??

Its been a while and I am still underconfident in RCs!
what is the probability of getting such kind of RC?
Is it ok to skip this one?
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63671 [0]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   07 May 2022, 14:23
Expert Reply

Question 4


ag153 wrote:
KarishmaB
GMATNinja

Q4- Why not A

Let's start by nailing down the author's purpose in each paragraph.

  • Paragraph 1: To explain how American Indians gained water rights based on land treaties, even if those treaties didn't actually mention water rights. This practice was established by Winters v. United States, and is later referred to as the "Winters doctrine."
  • Paragraph 2: To point out later situations where American Indians gained water rights under the "Winters doctrine" even without a formal land treaty.

Quote:
4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations

While the passage does "trace the development of laws," these laws are specifically concerned with the water rights of American Indians. They are not concerned with the establishment of "American Indian reservations" themselves.

Since the passage is primarily concerned with the water rights of American Indians, we can eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63671 [0]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   07 May 2022, 14:26
Expert Reply

Question 5


ag153 wrote:
Q5:
C- Why is Arizona v. not an exception to the criteria? It clearly is
E- The fact that it applies to pueblo indicates that Arizona v california was used for lands other than American Indian reservations. WHat is this choice trying ti say and why is it wrong? Also how is Arizona vs california even applying to pueblo- it is just a separate example stated.

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]?

Before we look at the answer choices, let's consider the lines cited in the question:

  • Lines 10-20 describe the Winters doctrine. More specifically, they describe the situations where water rights are given when land has been formally "set aside or reserved."
  • Lines 38-42 explain how Arizona v. California allows the Winters doctrine to be applied even in cases where land hasn't been "formally set aside or reserved." In other words, even if land was never formally reserved through a treaty, the Winters doctrine can still be applied, if the land was "treated as a reservation by the United States."

Here's (C) again:

Quote:
(C) Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.

It's true that Arizona v. California alters when the Winters doctrine can be applied. But that doesn't mean that it's an exception to the Winters doctrine.

The passage states that even if lands were not formally withdrawn "as American Indian reservations," this didn't bar "application of the Winters doctrine." As long as the lands were "treated as reservations," the Winters doctrine could be applied and the American Indian tribes in question could receive water rights.

So basically, Arizona v. California expanded the situations where the Winters doctrine can be applied, which is different than being an exception.

But there's another problem with (C). It states that Arizona v. California is the "sole" exception. And the passage doesn't give us any reason to think this was the ONLY time the Winters doctrine was modified. In fact, the first sentence of the second paragraph suggests that this happened multiple times: "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."

So because Arizona v. California isn't a "sole exception" to the Winters doctrine, we can eliminate it.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63671 [0]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   07 May 2022, 14:27
Expert Reply

Question 8


ag153 wrote:
Q8- Pls explain this whole question. Also as per choice E, how is it 'explicitly'

Quote:
8. It can be inferred from the passage that the Winters doctrine has been used to establish which of the following?

The Winters doctrine explains when water rights can be given. Originally, it applied to land that was given formally in a treaty, but Arizona v. California established that the Winters doctrine can be applied even without a formal treaty, as long as the land has been "treated like a reservation."

Let's move on to the answers.

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

Thanks to Arizona v. California, the Winters doctrine was used to reserve water rights even without a formal or "explicit" treaty, so (A) is out.

Quote:
(B) A legal distinction between federal lands reserved for American Indians and federal lands reserved for other purposes

The Winters doctrine is concerned with water rights, not how land should be reserved. (B) is wrong.

Quote:
(C) Criteria governing when the federal government may set land aside for a particular purpose

The Winters doctrine is about water rights, not setting aside land. Eliminate (C).

Quote:
(D) The special status of American Indian tribes' rights to reserved land

The Winters doctrine doesn't give American Indian tribes "special status." The passage discusses American Indian tribes as examples of when water rights were given, but it never indicates that the Winters doctrine gave them "special" treatment. They are simply mentioned as examples of water rights cases. (D) is wrong.

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

In the first paragraph, we see how the Winters doctrine allowed the federal government to reserve water when a treaty was made "explicitly." In the second paragraph, we see how the Winters doctrine was used to reserve water even without a formal treaty -- in other words, they could reserve water "implicitly."

Since (E) captures this, it's correct.
User avatar
B
Arthurito
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Jan 2022
Posts: 46
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [0]
Given Kudos: 42
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   19 May 2022, 05:54
This one has to be one of the toughest RC lol
User avatar
B
Leo_1511
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Nov 2022
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Forum Quiz Mode
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   18 Dec 2023, 11:47
Is a 50% accuracy, that is 4/8 correct question bad for this paragraph? I want to score 700+ and apart from this paragraph, my general accuracy with 650-700 level questions is around 80%
User avatar
B
abhinavsingh1012
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Sep 2022
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GMAT 1: 630 Q43 V33
Send PM
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink] New post   19 Dec 2023, 08:19
Tough one, got 7/8 in about 19 minutes (along with initial reading) so approximately 2 and a half minute on each question.

The best way to approach the reading part is to not delve too much on the details and the language, but to understand it holistically. Whether you like it or not, read through it completely.

The next big part is understanding the question and the answer choices. Instead of just looking through it once and framing the right possible answer in your head, read it slowly and entirely. I could do most questions by eliminating the wrong answers and thinking about the implications of an answer choice and tied it back to the question.

Hope this helps, explanations are there in the forum but approach is the essential thing here. :)

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]
19 Dec 2023, 08:19
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
Sajjad1994
GRE Forum Moderator
13961 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions