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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
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. 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
2. 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
3. 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 vs United states
4. The passage suggests which of the following about the question of Native Americans' rights to groundwaters?
A) It is important partly because of the effect of groundwaters 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.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
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. 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
2. 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
3. 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 vs United states
4. The passage suggests which of the following about the question of Native Americans' rights to groundwaters?
A) It is important partly because of the effect of groundwaters 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.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.