Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
Question 1
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
44% (03:20) correct
56%
(03:30) wrong
based on 10551
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 2
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
54% (01:42) correct 46%
(01:58) wrong
based on 10940
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 3
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
64% (01:11) correct 36%
(01:22) wrong
based on 10921
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 4
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
61% (00:56) correct 39%
(00:59) wrong
based on 10571
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 5
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
64% (01:42) correct 36%
(02:03) wrong
based on 9449
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 6
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
69% (01:12) correct 31%
(01:23) wrong
based on 9015
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 7
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
56% (01:03) correct 44%
(01:10) wrong
based on 9118
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 8
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
62% (01:03) correct 38%
(01:13) wrong
based on 7250
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
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
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
RC74000-02.01
2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 [Later decisions, ... 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.
2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 [Later decisions, ... 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.
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.
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.
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
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
RC74000-03.01
5. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38–42 [This pragmatic ... Winters doctrine.], and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 10–20 [Later decisions, ... 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.
5. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38–42 [This pragmatic ... Winters doctrine.], and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 10–20 [Later decisions, ... 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
adkikani
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @ www.gmatninja.com | YouTube | Articles | IG
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
nechets
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Last visit: 17 Jul 2016
Posts: 62
Location: Brazil
Schools: INSEAD Jan '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Products:
Guys,
I just went through this passage and made me feel horrible. By far, one of the toughest reading ever. But, this made me think about how to approach a tough reading in the exam. I could learn two lessons out of it:
(a) How to find the topic: It took me a while to figure out the main topic, as I was expecting something in the line of "clash between federal state and native americans" and so on. But I realized that GMAT is ALWAYS prone to mention it in the first two sentences of every reading. In this case one should have caught that the topic was about "...right to use water..."
(b) Once one find the main topic, keep the pace to reach the opposing views (swings): In this text, it became clear to me that there were the "legal" and the "practical" views. Confronting them is the main role of the second paragraph, and then the passage becomes easier to flow.
I understand these involve a lot of common sense, but the importance of them become evident only in a tough reading like the one above.
Please, share any of your thoughts about a particular way to approach this passage, as well.
Cheers!
I just went through this passage and made me feel horrible. By far, one of the toughest reading ever. But, this made me think about how to approach a tough reading in the exam. I could learn two lessons out of it:
(a) How to find the topic: It took me a while to figure out the main topic, as I was expecting something in the line of "clash between federal state and native americans" and so on. But I realized that GMAT is ALWAYS prone to mention it in the first two sentences of every reading. In this case one should have caught that the topic was about "...right to use water..."
(b) Once one find the main topic, keep the pace to reach the opposing views (swings): In this text, it became clear to me that there were the "legal" and the "practical" views. Confronting them is the main role of the second paragraph, and then the passage becomes easier to flow.
I understand these involve a lot of common sense, but the importance of them become evident only in a tough reading like the one above.
Please, share any of your thoughts about a particular way to approach this passage, as well.
Cheers!
Gmatsaiyan
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Last visit: 08 Aug 2022
Posts: 748
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE:General Management (Other)
Posts: 748
Official Explanations
1. According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap 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.
Supporting ideas
This question requires recognizing information that is explicitly stated in the passage. In the first sentence, the passage states that the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was established by treaty. The following sentence begins by stating that this treaty did not mention water rights (lines 4-5); in other words, the right to use the water flowing through the reservation was not established by treaty.
A. Although the Supreme Court ruled on water rights for the reservation established by the treaty, there is no evidence in the passage that the treaty itself was ever challenged in the Supreme Court.
B. Although the Winters case resulted in water rights for the reservation established by the treaty, there is no evidence in the passage that the treaty was ever rescinded.
C. The passage does not mention American Indians’ traditional resource use as being tied to the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation.
D. Correct. The passage states explicitly that the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation did not mention the right to use water flowing through the reservation.
E. The passage does not mention the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation or the treaty that established it in relation to Arizona v. California.
The correct answer is D.
2. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 8–17 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 reservewater for a particular purpose.
Inference
Answering this question requires making an inference based on information given in the passage. The question focuses on lines 8-17, where the passage provides a summary of the criteria used by the U.S. courts to establish water rights. The passage then explains that the Rio Grande pueblos used other means to establish water rights, noting that what constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition (lines 34–36). This strongly implies that establishing water rights for the Rio Grande pueblos required reference to legal language not contained in the criteria described in lines 8-17.
A. Since the passage says that decisions setting the criteria in lines 8-17 cited the Winters case—which gave water rights to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation—one can infer that the Fort Belknap reservation met all of those criteria.
B. The criteria in lines 8-17 do not touch on specific dates of the transfer of sovereignty over particular lands.
C. Correct. The passage demonstrates that for the Rio Grande pueblos, it was necessary to establish water rights based on criteria not contained in lines 8-17
D. The criteria described in lines 8-17 are not specific only to lands reserved for American Indians.
E. The passage illustrates that Winters established water rights in the absence of any explicit mention of water rights in the treaty.
The correct answer is C.
3. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 32-35, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 8-17?
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.
Inference
This question requires inferring how one part of the passage bears on another part of the passage. The two parts referred to are the criteria described in lines 8-17 and Arizona v. California, which is referred to in lines 32-35. Arizona v. California shows that the establishment of water rights need not be tied to any previous legal definition of reservation lands but may be tied to the U.S. government’s practice merely of treating the land as reserved for American Indians. The criteria described in lines 8-17 apply to situations in which the land in question has been legally identified as reservation land. So Arizona v. California broadened the scope of Winters in establishing water rights.
A. The passage illustrates that Arizona v. California does not supersede or deny any of the criteria in lines 8-17
B. Correct. The passage suggests that practice and not legal definition allows Winters to be applied to situations not covered by the criteria in lines 8-17
C. In stating that some American Indian tribes have also established water rights by means other than the criteria in lines 10–20, the first sentence of the second paragraph makes clear that Arizona v.California is not the sole exception to the criteria.
D. The passage states that Arizona v. California does refer to Winters.
E. The passage illustrates that Arizona v. California was directly relevant to the Pueblo Indians’ water rights.
The correct answer is B.
4. The “pragmatic approach” mentioned in lines 37–38 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
Supporting ideas
This question requires recognizing what a particular phrase in the passage is referring to. The pragmatic approach the question refers to is introduced by the passage as this pragmatic approach. It is therefore necessary to identify which approach the passage has already referred to in this context, which in this case is contained in the sentence just prior to the reference. This sentence states that establishing what is an American Indian reservation is a matter of the U.S. government’s practice and not of any formal, legal definition.
A. Correct. The approach referred to as pragmatic involves establishing American Indian reservations based not on formal law but on the government’s established practice of treating the lands as such.
B. The approach referred to as pragmatic is not specific to establishing water rights.
C. The approach referred to as pragmatic is not specific to establishing water rights.
D. The approach referred to as pragmatic does not refer to balancing the rights of some people with rights of others.
E. The approach referred to as pragmatic is shown to be consistent with and supportive of the rights established by Winters.
The correct answer is A.
5. 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
Evaluation
Answering this question involves recognizing how a particular part of the passage functions within thepassage as a whole. The passage illustrates in the first paragraph that Winters was cited in the establishment of water rights based on a set of criteria that included the formal withdrawal of lands by the government. In the second paragraph, the case of the Rio Grande pueblos is introduced as an example of lands that had never been formally withdrawn by the government, raising the question of whether Winters would still be applicable in such situations. The passage then asserts that the situation of the pueblos has not barred (line 33) the application of Winters.
A. Correct. While the passage affirms the application of Winters to the situation with the pueblos, it recognizes that it may initially appear that Winters does not apply.
B. The passage states explicitly that the United States did gain official sovereignty over pueblo lands in 1848, when they became part of the United States (lines 27–28).
C. The passage states explicitly that the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands (lines 28–30) and takes no stand on the issue of whether particular lands ought to be considered public lands.
D. While one can infer that the rights of other citizens to use water could be limited by reserving water rights for residents of American Indian lands according to the Winters doctrine, the passage takes no stand on this issue.
E. The passage does not mention the rights of federal courts to claim jurisdiction over particular water rights cases.
The correct answer is A.
6. 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
Main idea
This question requires recognizing the main topic of the passage, which is about the establishment of water rights on American Indian lands. Its intent is to explain or describe, and it does not take sides on any issue.
A. The passage is primarily about establishing water rights, not establishing reservations.
B. Correct. The passage is an explanation of water rights on American Indian lands.
C. The passage describes legal criteria used to establish water rights on American Indian lands but does not take issue with them.
D. The passage does not discuss the earliest date for water rights on American Indian lands.
E. The passage is primarily about establishing water rights, not about types of reservations.
The correct answer is B.
6. 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
Inference
Answering this question requires recognizing what the passage implies. The passage illustrates at the beginning of the second paragraph that water rights were granted to Pueblo Indians based on their use of the water in the Rio Grande pueblos prior to U.S. sovereignty. The passage also later states that since the Winters doctrine applies, the water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848 (lines 42–44), which implies that the water rights of citizens other than Pueblo Indians are limited.
A. The passage illustrates that Arizona v. California reinforced the water rights of citizens residing on American Indian reservations; it does not imply a precedent ensuring water rights for other citizens.
B. The passage states that the water rights of citizens other than Pueblo Indians are lower in priority, not abolished altogether.
C. The passage does not mention that different water rights have been defined by different treaties.
D. The passage does not mention that the water rights of citizens other than Pueblo Indians are guaranteed on pueblo lands.
E. Correct. The passage states that the water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights, which thereby limits the rights of those citizens.
The correct answer is E.
Hello community!
I studied this passage for two days, and this is how I break down the passage and questions
Hope it helps someone who's struggling with this passage.
I think I deserve Kudos if you don't mind
Thank you!
I studied this passage for two days, and this is how I break down the passage and questions
Hope it helps someone who's struggling with this passage.
I think I deserve Kudos if you don't mind
Thank you!
Attachments
-223.jpg [ 945 KiB | Viewed 12771 times ]
-224.jpg [ 434.8 KiB | Viewed 12707 times ]
-225.jpg [ 650.22 KiB | Viewed 12780 times ]
-226.jpg [ 478.19 KiB | Viewed 12752 times ]
-227.jpg [ 398.59 KiB | Viewed 12735 times ]
-228.jpg [ 441.26 KiB | Viewed 12744 times ]
-229.jpg [ 557.99 KiB | Viewed 12742 times ]
-230.jpg [ 534.69 KiB | Viewed 12725 times ]
General Discussion
nechets
Joined: 04 Oct 2013
Last visit: 17 Jul 2016
Posts: 62
Location: Brazil
Schools: INSEAD Jan '17 (A)
GMAT 1: 660 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Products:
Tough one. This question is testing your Critical Reasoning skills more than anything. The question asks: if X (criteria discussed in lines 16-32), then what MUST BE TRUE? Therefore, approach it as if it were a MUST BE TRUE Critical reasoning question.
What are the premises?
Everything stated in X - the criterias(!):
To guarantee water rights, the land needs to...
(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.
Now, take a look a at what answer C says (the conclusion):
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos. - Wait a minute! The second paragraph says that the Rio Grande Pueblo "never formally constituted a part of federal public land". Now look at what premise (1) states. Therefore, Rio Grande Pueblos would never be awarted water rights, as they were not part of a federal jurisdiction.
I hope it helps,
What are the premises?
Everything stated in X - the criterias(!):
To guarantee water rights, the land needs to...
(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.
Now, take a look a at what answer C says (the conclusion):
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos. - Wait a minute! The second paragraph says that the Rio Grande Pueblo "never formally constituted a part of federal public land". Now look at what premise (1) states. Therefore, Rio Grande Pueblos would never be awarted water rights, as they were not part of a federal jurisdiction.
I hope it helps,
madman91
Got 3/4 right in 9 mins..Dint understand the passage at all..! Guessed 2 answers and got the first question right and 2nd one wrong..! the third answer was well stated in the passage..and for the last one,was able to luckily understand the gist of passage..!IMO,the author wasnt arugueing or questioning any thing..he was totally in charge of the passage,and explaining or discussing facts and his point of view about these facts..!I should say,2/4 is wat i really deserve. 
Posts: 2
Q8: The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands : Winters doctrine is applied to pueblo lands even though they are not federal lands but according to the three criteria it should not be applied to the pueblo lands
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine :
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos. : the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
Q10: According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.: this is stated in line 4 of the passage
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
Q11: The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations: we are not tracing the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes: even though the passage questions about the legal criteria it has not stopped at this point .
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations
Q12: Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in highlight text, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in the last sentence of first paragraph?
A Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.
B Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.: it states that winters is applied to even for lands that are not covered in the 3 points in the first passage
C Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.
D Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
E Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.
Q13: The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in hightlight text of the passage is best defined as one that
A grants recognition to reservations that were never formally established but that have traditionally been treated as such : this is what is stated i the second passage
B determines the water rights of all citizens in a particular region by examining the actual history of water usage in that region
C gives federal courts the right to reserve water along with land even when it is clear that the government originally intended to reserve only the land
D bases the decision to recognize the legal rights of a group on the practical effect such a recognition is likely to have on other citizens
Q14: The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
A guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.California : it is not guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.California
B abolished by the Winters doctrine : the winters didnot abolished
C deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this
D guaranteed by federal land-use laws
E limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians : the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands : Winters doctrine is applied to pueblo lands even though they are not federal lands but according to the three criteria it should not be applied to the pueblo lands
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine :
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos. : the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
Q10: According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.: this is stated in line 4 of the passage
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
Q11: The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations: we are not tracing the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes: even though the passage questions about the legal criteria it has not stopped at this point .
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations
Q12: Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in highlight text, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in the last sentence of first paragraph?
A Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.
B Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.: it states that winters is applied to even for lands that are not covered in the 3 points in the first passage
C Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.
D Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
E Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.
Q13: The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in hightlight text of the passage is best defined as one that
A grants recognition to reservations that were never formally established but that have traditionally been treated as such : this is what is stated i the second passage
B determines the water rights of all citizens in a particular region by examining the actual history of water usage in that region
C gives federal courts the right to reserve water along with land even when it is clear that the government originally intended to reserve only the land
D bases the decision to recognize the legal rights of a group on the practical effect such a recognition is likely to have on other citizens
Q14: The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
A guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.California : it is not guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.California
B abolished by the Winters doctrine : the winters didnot abolished
C deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this
D guaranteed by federal land-use laws
E limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians : the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 435
Thanks GMATNinja
I got the below question wrong. Can you help to explain this question?
Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
_________________
I got the below question wrong. Can you help to explain this question?
Q9: The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
_________________
pikolo2510
This is actually question #2 in this thread, referring to the following criteria:
Quote:
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.
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @ www.gmatninja.com | YouTube | Articles | IG
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
bpdulog
Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Last visit: 19 Aug 2020
Posts: 43
Location: United States
Schools: MBA@UNC"21 (A$) Rice PMBA '21 (A) USC MBA.PM '22 (A) McDonough Evening'22 (A) NYU Stern (A) Tepper '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 620 Q43 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
Schools: MBA@UNC"21 (A$) Rice PMBA '21 (A) USC MBA.PM '22 (A) McDonough Evening'22 (A) NYU Stern (A) Tepper '21 (A)
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
Posts: 43
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
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
bpdulog, try reviewing this post and see if that helps you tackle question #4.
Quote:
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @ www.gmatninja.com | YouTube | Articles | IG
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
hazelnut
i seriously like the brevity in your summary , its short and does not consume much time , i understood the passage , got 5 correct and 2 Wrong , but took a lot of time , around 22minutes. My summary was a lot longer.
I am just warming up , will be starting my GMAT Prep from next month.
Really there is a lot to learn from your Approach to this Question , thanks a lot for this valuable post.
GMATNinja
Hi GMATNinja,
would you please confirm my reasoning is solid?
ffrom the pasage, water right could be obtained by two ways,
way #1 -- treaty mentioned in frist paragraph,
way #2 -- is practic if the pueblos were treated as reservation.
as the question, if critreria were the only way to establish reservation, in other words, there is only way #1 -- treaty mentioned in first paragraph
because in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. it implies that the Rio Grande pueblos would not been protected by the critretia in the treaty as mentioned in first paragraph, then we can get that the pueblos.
So C is the answer.
BTW, if no treaty ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations, Does it mean the federal government would not obtain the water right ? did i miss something ?
Hi mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, MagooshExpert Carolyn,
sayantanc2
VeritasPrepKarishma, please join.
Thanks in advance
have a nice day
>_~
Can anyone explain number 5?? Got that wrong....
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
Yeshoda
Here's #5 again:
Quote:
Here's what we know about these highlighted court cases:
- Winters v. US took place in 1908. This decision established three criteria that courts can use to preserve water rights in the interest of American Indian tribes. Why exactly does this matter? Well, the author brings up this case in paragraph 1 because it shows how the Court protects water rights for American Indians even if those rights aren't legally stated.
- Arizona v. CA took place in 1963. This decision indicated that the way that a federal reservation is created doesn't affect how "the Winters doctrine" is applied to it. Why does this matter? The author brings up this case because it buttresses -- author's words, not mine
-- the "pragmatic approach" of the Winters doctrine. Arizona v. CA moved that pragmatic approach beyond the explicit criteria that were stated in Winters v US. This fits the purpose of paragraph 2, which is to show how the Winters doctrine has been used to establish water rights for American Indians, even when the waters were not part of a legally defined reservation.
So Winters v. US created the doctrine, while Arizona v. CA expanded that doctrine. Let's start eliminating answer choices that drift away from our understanding of the passage:
Quote:
Arizona v. California absolutely did not abolish or compete with the Winters doctrine. Eliminate (A).
Quote:
This sounds pretty good! Arizona v. California, brought the Rio Grande pueblo Indians under the definition of reservation covered by the Winters doctrine, even though the Rio Grande pueblos were never legally declared a federal reservation. Let's keep it around.
Quote:
The author does not present Arizona v. California as an exception to the three criteria from Winters v. US, let alone the sole exception. Nothing the author says supports this reason for bringing up Arizona V. California, so we'll eliminate (C).
Quote:
In fact, we know that the opposite is true! Arizona v. California did refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas this decision established that the Winters doctrine can be applied to the Rio Grande pueblos. Eliminate (D).
Quote:
Did Arizona v. California apply the Winters doctrine criteria only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations? No. Arizona v. California, like Winters v. US, dealt with lands that the federal government intended to treat as reservations. These could be legally established reservations. They could also be non-federal lands that were nonetheless understood to be American Indian reservations, like the Rio Grande pueblos. This answer choice mixes up the classifications and gives us a very narrow interpretation with the word "only," so we'll eliminate (E) as well.
That's why choice (B) is the best answer to question #5. I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @ www.gmatninja.com | YouTube | Articles | IG
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
zoezhuyan
You have the right idea, but the "treaty" you're referring to should not be the focus. This treaty was part of Winters v. US, but the author mentions this treaty and this case to show us a bigger point: the Court does not treat legal agreements (such as treaties) as the sole basis for reserving water rights.
Also remember that this question asks us to consider the three criteria listed, so we should stay focused on those criteria.
zoezhuyan
Paragraph 2 tells us that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally made part of federal public lands by any kind of law (treaty or otherwise):
Quote:
Again, the reason the author mentions this is to show that the Winters Doctrine doesn't require explicit legal permission to fulfill the intention of protecting American Indian rights. The author's purpose is to show us how the Court has used this doctrine to take a more pragmatic approach to reserve water rights for American Indians.
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @ www.gmatninja.com | YouTube | Articles | IG
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
Posts: 4
Thanks.
"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."
Doesn't the first phrase mean that Arizona vs Cali supports the application of Winters doctrine. The second phrase confuses me because it seems to suggest that in the case a federal reservation is created, Winters can be applied again. If a reservation has already been created, why is Winters being used again to create a reservation?
"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."
Doesn't the first phrase mean that Arizona vs Cali supports the application of Winters doctrine. The second phrase confuses me because it seems to suggest that in the case a federal reservation is created, Winters can be applied again. If a reservation has already been created, why is Winters being used again to create a reservation?
Xinxinzhang
Let's break down the sentence in question:
Quote:
"This pragmatic approach" refers to the preceding sentence: "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." In other words, it is pragmatic to define a piece of land as a reservation based on how the land has been treated in practice, rather than just by legal definition.
The pragmatic approach described above is buttressed (or supported) by a court case, Arizona vs. California. In this case, "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 means that the Winters doctrine can be applied to a piece of land that became a reservation through legal rulings, through its historical treatment as a reservation, or by any other means.
Let me address this question specifically:
Quote:
The Winters doctrine did not create any reservations -- it merely established that an existing reservation had the "right to use waters flowing through or adjacent" to the land. It established this right despite the fact that water was not discussed in the original treaty to create the reservation. According to the passage, later court cases expanded the Winters doctrine to apply to more diverse situations.
Arizona vs. California was another of these cases that applied the Winters doctrine to a broader range of situations than did the Winters Vs. United States case. That's why (B) is the best answer choice for question #5.
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @ www.gmatninja.com | YouTube | Articles | IG
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
Beginners' Guides: RC | CR | Complete Resource Compilations: RC | CR
YouTube LIVE webinars: all videos by topic + 24-hour marathon for Ukraine
Question Explanation Collections: RC | CR | SC
GMATNinja Could you please explain why question 8 's correct answer is E ? (I chose C which is wrong)
Announcements
How to Tell If Your GMAT Prep Resources Are Actually Helping You
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Tuck at Dartmouth
AI at Dartmouth Tuck: How the School Is Preparing Leaders for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.