It is currently 20 Aug 2017, 12:13

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

7 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 361

Kudos [?]: 334 [7] , given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 14 Jul 2008, 09:00
7
This post received
KUDOS
40
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

41% (03:40) correct 59% (02:35) wrong based on 536

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

45% (02:09) correct 55% (01:14) wrong based on 468

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

61% (01:47) correct 39% (00:46) wrong based on 466

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

56% (01:44) correct 44% (00:37) wrong based on 449

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

59% (02:29) correct 41% (01:07) wrong based on 406

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

59% (01:58) correct 41% (00:47) wrong based on 389

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Question Stats:

49% (02:16) correct 51% (01:13) wrong based on 395

HideShow timer Statistics

The Official Guide for GMAT Review 13th Edition, 2012

Practice Question
Question No.: RC 56 ~ 62
Page: 390

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
A

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


[Reveal] Spoiler:
C

2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 [Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.] were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?

(A) The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
(B) Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
(C) There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
(D) Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
(E) Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
D

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.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
B

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


[Reveal] Spoiler:
B

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.


[Reveal] Spoiler:
A

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


[Reveal] Spoiler:
E

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

[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #1 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #2 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #3 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #4 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #5 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #6 OA
[Reveal] Spoiler: Question #7 OA

Last edited by hazelnut on 12 Aug 2017, 22:19, edited 6 times in total.
Formatted the Para and added missing Qs

Kudos [?]: 334 [7] , given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 938

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 14 Jul 2008, 18:03
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

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 0

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3356

Kudos [?]: 311 [0], given: 2

Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jul 2008, 21:36
shit...this one just knocked me off...

i am going wth

C
B
D
B

pls post OA..i wont be able to sleep until then :(

Kudos [?]: 311 [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 73

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

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

Show Tags

New post 14 Jul 2008, 22:43
C, D, A, B

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

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3356

Kudos [?]: 311 [0], given: 2

Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2008, 19:20
Vk please post OA

Kudos [?]: 311 [0], given: 2

2 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 205 [2] , given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2008, 20:30
2
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
vksunder wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
No, passage states This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
The passage cites the example related to water treaty/reservations so wrong
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public
lands.
No, because of "the pueblo lands never formally constituted a 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.
No, the passage also mentioned other rules by court in addition to Winters doctrine
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the
traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians.
Correct
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
Note criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 is "Later decisions, citing Winters"

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.
Only E is stressed the rule (3) line 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
passage says "Although this treaty did not mention water rights"
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
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


E, E, D, B

OA please!

Kudos [?]: 205 [2] , given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 361

Kudos [?]: 334 [1] , given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2008, 07:15
1
This post received
KUDOS
Guys,

OA = A/ C/ D/ B

This RC was painful!

Thanks!

Kudos [?]: 334 [1] , given: 0

Current Student
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3356

Kudos [?]: 311 [0], given: 2

Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2008, 07:45
damn 2/4 sucks...

Kudos [?]: 311 [0], given: 2

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 857

Kudos [?]: 450 [0], given: 7

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

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2009, 03:53
In Winters v. United States
(1908), the Supreme Court held
that the right to use waters flow-
Line ing through or adjacent to the
(5) 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
(10) 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
(15) their lands would have been use
less. Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts
can find federal rights to reserve
water for particular purposes if
(20) (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
(25) 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
(30) intended to reserve water as well
as land when establishing the
reservation.
Some American Indian tribes
have also established water rights
(35) 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
(40) 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
(45) 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
(50) public lands as American Indian
reservations. This fact, however,
has not barred application
of the Winters doctrine. What
constitutes an American Indian
(55) 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
(60) 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
(65) 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,
(70) the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q25:
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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q26:
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q27:
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q28:

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

Kudos [?]: 450 [0], given: 7

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2009
Posts: 12

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

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

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2009, 22:29
my take : 1A 2C 3D 4C (9.03min)

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

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 126 [1] , given: 23

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

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2009, 14:30
1
This post received
KUDOS

Kudos [?]: 126 [1] , given: 23

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 23

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

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2009, 14:36
I got C on the last quesiton. Why am I wrong?

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 23

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2009
Posts: 356

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 15

Location: San Francisco
Schools: Duke,Oxford,IMD,INSEAD
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Aug 2009, 16:26
mendelay wrote:



thank u - both the topics are now merged

Kudos [?]: 78 [0], given: 15

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 97

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 65

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

Show Tags

New post 25 Jan 2012, 14:16
This is a really tough one.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 65

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 355

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 31

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

Show Tags

New post 23 Mar 2012, 19:46
marked E E D B
i.e. 2/4

Okay first two questions are way tough and didnt find anyone here getting at right answer.
hope these kindda stay away from GMAT.
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 31

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
Posts: 146

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 15

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2012, 09:06
took 7.30 mintutes
ACDB

glad all r right

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 15

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
Posts: 146

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 15

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Mar 2012, 09:10
mendelay wrote:
I got C on the last quesiton. Why am I wrong?



Its is very close. But IMO it does not actually "question" it actually "explains"

Different criteria are explained in the passage. Validity of none is questioned. Hope this helps

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 15

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 54

Kudos [?]: 1109 [1] , given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2012, 15:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters fl owing through or adjacent to the Fort Belknap 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 reserving 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.
58. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38-42, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 1O-20?
(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


59. The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in lines 59-61 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


62. 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

Kudos [?]: 1109 [1] , given: 0

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 May 2012
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 10 [1] , given: 2

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Aug 2012, 18:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
This is probably the most intimidating RC in the whole of OG-12

Kudos [?]: 10 [1] , given: 2

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 7 [2] , given: 22

Location: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Concentration: Human Resources
GMAT Date: 12-06-2012
GPA: 3.5
WE: Research (Human Resources)
Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2012, 05:18
2
This post received
KUDOS
With a beautiful 28 on TOEFL, I always thought that I am good at RC but this test actually knocked me off!!!
It's really tough! I answered all the questions wrong!! I hope I wouldn't face it in real GMAT!

Kudos [?]: 7 [2] , given: 22

Re: In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the ri   [#permalink] 09 Oct 2012, 05:18

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 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

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®.