Much of the confusion over Native American water rights in the United

Question

Much of the confusion over Native American water rights in the United States can be traced to Winters v. United States, the 1908 Supreme Court decision that first established those rights. In one part of this decision, the Court seemed to suggest that Native Americans were entitled to all the water flowing in rivers bordering or entering their reservations. Elsewhere in the decision, the Court stated that Native Americans had rights only to an amount of water from such rivers sufficient for irrigation purposes. There was obviously a considerable difference between the two positions. But even if one assumed, as most attorneys have since, that the Court intended to set a limit, its nature was far from clear. What exactly did the Court mean by "irrigation purposes"? Did it mean the irrigation needs at the time of a reservation’s creation? Or at the time of the Court’s decision? Or was the decree open-ended and intended to guarantee Native Americans additional water (or perhaps less water) as their population grew (or declined) and their agricultural needs along with it? If meant to be open-ended, then did this not create a hardship for non-Native Americans? How, for example, could they proceed to make costly investments to develop their lands if at any time the courts could deprive them of water needed by a nearby reservation? Alternatively, if Native American rights to water were to be determined by irrigation needs (whether past or future), did this not constitute an unjust restriction on Native Americans? Should they, for example, be required to use their water for irrigation when they might prefer to use it for other pursuits, such as mining or fishing? A related unanswered question that emerged as competition for water increased in the arid western United States was Native Americans’ right to water beneath the ground: did the right include only surface streams, or did it extend to the groundwaters that often determined the amount of water flowing in streams? Could Native Americans prevent non-Native Americans from engaging in groundwater pumping close to a reservation, if that pumping diminished the reservation’s surface water supplies? Such crucial questions have given rise to dozens of conflicting decisions in both lower and higher courts.

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. argue in favor of a particular way of interpreting a particular decision
B. criticize the authors of a particular document for making specious arguments
C. detail several conflicting court decisions concerning a particular legal issue
D. describe the ambiguities stemming from a particular decision concerning an issue
E. suggest that a particular decision has consistently been interpreted inaccurately

2. The passage suggests which of the following about the question of Native Americans’ rights to ground waters?

A. It is important partly because of the effect of groundwater on the amount of water flowing in surface streams.
B. It arose partly because the climate in the West became increasingly arid in the years following Winters v. United States.
C. It has rarely been resolved in court cases in Native Americans’ favor.
D. It has given rise to a greater number of legal disputes than has the question of Native Americans’ rights to surface streams.
E. It was addressed in passing by the Supreme Court in Winters v. United States, and subsequent rulings have elaborated upon the principles underlying that decision.

3. According to the passage, non-Native Americans would be likely to face particular difficulties in developing their lands near Native American reservations if Winters v. United States were interpreted to mean that

A. Native Americans’ water rights should be set at a fixed level of water use
B. Native Americans were required to use their water for irrigation purposes even when they preferred to use it for other enterprises
C. Native Americans’ water rights did not extend to groundwaters close to reservations
D. Native Americans were entitled to restrict fishing in any streams that flowed through their reservations
E. Native Americans were entitled to increasing amounts of water as their populations expanded

4. The question in the highlighted text serves primarily to

A. imply that Winters v. United States has often been misinterpreted
B. indicate a reason for Native Americans to challenge Winters v. United States
C. question the way in which Winters v. United States defines "agricultural needs"
D. identify a problem raised by one interpretation of Winters v. United States
E. cast doubt on the consistency of the Supreme Court’s views as expressed in Winters v. Uniter

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-lmuspn12.png [ 183.27 KiB | Viewed 2464 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-ii6s83nu.png [ 42.6 KiB | Viewed 2468 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-gck3nfv1.png [ 69.66 KiB | Viewed 2463 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-r69sdi2e.png [ 69.56 KiB | Viewed 2463 times ]

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-x5ru15p5.png [ 48.21 KiB | Viewed 2461 times ]

Show Answer Question #1

Official Answer

D

Show Answer Question #2

Official Answer

A

Show Answer Question #3

Official Answer

E

Show Answer Question #4

Official Answer

D

ashutosh_73 · Answer

I got Q3 wrong during timed condition. I found Q3- (D) bit confusing:
 
Does this mean, Native Americans CAN restrict fishing in their areas OR does this mean Native American themselves were restricted from fishing?
Former goes in-line with the question asked, while later goes against the question.

acethegmat6969 · Answer

Anyone know why Question 2 answer B "It arose partly because the climate in the West became increasingly arid in the years following Winters v. United States." is incorrect?

mitshivi2024 · Answer

It is incorrect because in the passage it is mentioned that the competition for water increased in the arid regions, and not because the regions became increasingly arid. Now the competition for water could have increased maybe because population increased and not necessarily the region becoming increasingly arid.
Passage - " related unanswered question that emerged as competition for water increased in the arid western United States was Native Americans' right to water beneath the ground: "

I hope this helps!

mitshivi2024 · Answer

Hi experts,
Your expert analysis is very much needed and will be highly appreciated on this Official Passage. 
Thanks!

Rance14 · Answer

Can someone please explain the 1st and 4th questions in detail? Thanks

MS61 · Answer

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. argue in favor of a particular way of interpreting a particular decision.  Incorrect. Author is not arguing in favor. 
B. criticize the authors of a particular document for making specious arguments.  Incorrect. specious is incorrect 
C. detail several conflicting court decisions concerning a particular legal issue.  Incorrect. several Court decisions are not mentioned  
D. describe the ambiguities stemming from a particular decision concerning an issue.  Correct 
E. suggest that a particular decision has consistently been interpreted inaccurately.  Incorrect. Interpreted inaccurately is incorrect

4. The question in the highlighted text serves primarily to

If meant to be open-ended, then did this not create a hardship for non-Native Americans?

A. imply that Winters v. United States has often been misinterpreted.  Incorrect. Generic from passage 
B. indicate a reason for Native Americans to challenge Winters v. United States.  Incorrect. No challenge has been discussion 
C. question the way in which Winters v. United States defines "agricultural needs".  Incorrect. This point belongs to different paragraph 
D. identify a problem raised by one interpretation of Winters v. United States.  Correct. It does identify one of the problems related to ground water. 
E. cast doubt on the consistency of the Supreme Court’s views as expressed in Winters v. Uniter.  Incorrect. Generic from passage

gmat202311 · Answer

Hello!

Can someone please explain why #2 has a correct answer of A? Thank you!

Prajeesh · Answer

I was confused with Q2 since it has the word 'partly' in it. I went for C instead, how can we justify that it is only important 'partly'?

Resad95 · Answer

Let me try to make life little easier, although not expert ))

2. The passage suggests which of the following about the question of Native Americans’ rights to ground waters?

A. It is important partly because of the effect of groundwater on the amount of water flowing in surface streams. -    think using partly is logical as there is another side of coin related with statement of "irrigation purposes" meaning within the context of the decision. Thus groundwater flowing to the surface was one of the issues but not the only one. And each of its has its subcategories of issues. 
 B. It arose partly because the climate in the West became increasingly arid in the years following  Winters  v.  United States . -   no information about the fact that it was before or after supreme court decision + another reason is mentioned by   mitshivi2024 above.   
 C. It has rarely been resolved in court cases in Native Americans’ favor. -   no discussion to which favor it is ruled 
 D. It has given rise to a greater number of legal disputes than has the question of Native Americans’ rights to surface streams. -   it tells that it raised questions but doesn't specifically talk about legal disputes  
 E. It was addressed in passing by the Supreme Court in  Winters  v.  United States , and subsequent rulings have elaborated upon the principles underlying that decision. -   no subsequent ruling is discussed as ambigiuty as of today is the point of the passage

Prajeesh · Answer

Thank you, Got it! Much appreciated

Posted from my mobile device

kittle · Answer

MartyMurray   KarishmaB   GMATNinja  - can you please explain Q3 to me? It would be big help

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 3 
 
Here's the relevant portion of the passage:

If the decree was open-ended, then it was intended to guarantee Native Americans additional water as their population grew. If that's the case, then the courts could at any time deprive non-Native Americans of water by a nearby reservation.

Imagine a river nearby a reservation. Non-native Americans might try to develop the land around that water, which would require costly investments. But then the courts could say, "sorry, that river flows into the reservation, and the people living in the reservation (Native Americans) need that water for their growing agricultural needs." That would leave the non-Native Americans out of luck.

If Native Americans are entitled to an ever-increasing amount of water, then non-Native Americans will likely face difficulties in developing their lands near Native American reservations. So (E) is spot-on.

sorrywhat · Answer

Q4. It does raise a concern or potential consequence of interpreting the water rights as open-ended — a possible  problem  that could arise for non-Native Americans. But this problem is not related to the groundwater one.

Much of the confusion over Native American water rights in the United

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

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

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Much of the confusion over Native American water rights in the United

Prep Toolkit

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

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards