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

Quote:

1. The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?

If the question asks about the Rio Grande pueblos, then we need to find the relevant part of the text, and we can plainly see that our answer must be found in paragraph two. So, why would the author mention the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands?

The first two lines of the second paragraph concern water rights and the traditional diversion and use of certain waters on Native American lands prior to U.S. acquisition. Despite the fact that the second line introduces the Rio Grande pueblos, it is not until the following line, the third in the paragraph, that we encounter the language we are seeking from the question stem (my italics): the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands... no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.. Notice the line that follows and comments on this fact (again, the very word used in the question stem): This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. We should thus be looking for an answer that reflects the notion that the Winters doctrine is applicable in such circumstances. Keep in mind, in many Evaluate questions, those that ask why the author mentions such-and-such, the answer can typically be found either directly before or after the lines in question. This one falls into the latter category.

Quote:

(A) Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands

Inferences can be tricky, but the pieces seem to fit here. Notice the way the author emphasizes the point in the passage by using the transition however. To whom is this line directed? It would be much less authoritative without however. Perhaps the author means to disabuse the reader of the line of reasoning above. I did not select this answer choice right away. Rather, I placed it on hold while I sought out worse, more debatable options.

Quote:

(B) Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands

Although such information is in the right ballpark—from the right part of the passage—we cannot point to the line above that makes reference to this fact and connect it to this answer choice at all. This should be an easier elimination.

Quote:

(C) Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands

Now this is the sort of language you want to see in an answer choice: overreaching and unqualified. The author of the passage does not intend to persuade. In fact, the entire passage reads like a debrief on the Winters doctrine, a little history lesson with no value judgments on display. Our job seems to be getting easier by the answer choice.

Quote:

(D) Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine

Once again, the author does not seem to be supporting an argument, but the easier target is that the wrong group—non-Natives—is under consideration. It is not until the last line of the passage that the water rights of [other] citizens enters the picture, long after the fact in question has been discussed.

Quote:

(E) Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

This is the exact opposite of what the passage tells us. The Winters doctrine applies despite some of the legal complexities, plain and simple.

Show SpoilerAnalysis

Quote:

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

Since the question deals in extremes, referring to the three points at the end of the first paragraph as though they were the only criteria for establishing a reservation's water rights, we will likely need to find the odd one out in the answer choices, something that would not fit in with those points.

Quote:

(A) The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.

The passage opens by discussing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation case, Winters v. United States (1908), so if this answer choice is true, we should find justification for it right there. But the second line of the passage tells us the opposite: 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. If later court decisions cited the Winters case to establish the three criteria, then it must be true that the water rights of Native Americans took precedence over those of other citizens. Case closed.

Quote:

(B) Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.

The mention of the year 1848 ought to catch your eye. Why 1848? There is nothing in the first paragraph that refers to that particular year. In the second paragraph, we see that the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. And, at the end of the passage, we see that year pop up again: 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. Notice, however, that the lines refer to the Rio Grande pueblos and the Pueblo Indians, respectively, not to all Native Americans or, by extension, all Native American reservations. Although this answer choice may seem to fall in line with the passage, we have to be really careful to attribute specific information (such as dates) to exactly what the passage says. Simply put, we cannot connect the year 1848 to all reservations, only to the Rio Grande pueblos.

Quote:

(C) There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.

Perfect, in light of the above. Look at criterion #2 again and compare to the information we have already cited in the first question (my italics):

(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

Paragraph 2, line 3—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.

If the pueblo lands were never withdrawn from public lands or designated as reservations, then criterion #2 does not apply. Thus, we can get behind this answer choice.

Quote:

D) Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.

Similar to (B), this answer choice zooms out to focus on reservations in general, but here, we get more specific information—reservations other than American Indian reservations. If we take a look at the passage again, though, at the line before the one that discusses the criteria, it establishes that the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians. Other types of reservations are irrelevant to the discussion. This should be another easy elimination.

Quote:

(E) Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

According to criterion #3, intentions are good enough to be legally binding: (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation. In other words, this answer choice is the opposite of what we want.

Show SpoilerAnalysis

Quote:

3. According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?

Finally, a detail question. These are typically easy to look up, and since we have already discussed Fort Berthold, we know where to look. We just need to find what the passage tells us about the treaty that established the reservation. The word appears twice in successive lines: the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights...

There is little point in seeking to qualify other answers when a quick scan reveals the one that matches.

Quote:

(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.

If you wanted to check the other answers for fun, you might want to replace the it in each answer choice with the treaty that established the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. This particular treaty is not mentioned after the first two lines of the passage. We are not told that it was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times. The Court held a case to consider the treaty, the Court made a ruling, and that ruling set a precedent—the Winters doctrine—for other legal proceedings on the water rights of Native Americans. The original treaty was not contested again. (A) is gone.

The passage does not indicate that the treaty in question was rescinded or nullified. Rather, it was reinterpreted in the Winters case to extend water rights to the Native Americans at Fort Berthold. Choice (B) is out.

The content of answer choice (C)—traditional use of the land's resources—does not come up until the second paragraph, when other American Indian tribes serve as the focus. By this time, the passage has moved on from discussing the treaty in question. Choice (C) is gone.

Toward the end of the passage, the Arizona v. California case is mentioned in reference to the Winters doctrine, not to the original treaty on which the Winters decision was made. That treaty was never modified, at least not according to the passage, certainly not by the Arizona v. California case. (E) should be another easy elimination.

Show SpoilerAnalysis

Quote:

4. The primary purpose of the passage is to

Main Idea questions, as they are categorized in the OG, can sometimes be quite tricky. I have seen passages that are easy to understand but have quite difficult Main Idea questions, and then I have seen other passages that seem nightmarish but have relatively easy answer choices. Whether you take notes as you read or create a mental map of the passage, as I do, you should only cross off an answer choice if you can disprove it, not because it does not fit your recollection of the passage. (You might have missed something.)

Quote:

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

Answer too quickly, and you may fall right into this trap. While the passage does discuss laws that pertain to such reservations, the laws in question deal with water rights, not with establishing the reservations themselves.

Quote:

(B) explain the legal basis for the water rights of American Indian tribes

There is nothing to find fault with here. The only part that took me a moment to process was explain. The passage is informative, the author somewhat hidden. So, does the author intend to explain the grounds for these laws? You bet. If the two paragraphs of the passage are not seen as an explanation of some sort, then I need to revisit my dictionary.

Quote:

(C) question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes

Remember, the author was pretty much removed from the passage, doling out information without adding judgments. If the author were indeed questioning something, we would expect to see words such as baseless, unwarranted, or even blind adherence. Furthermore, the passage hammers home the point that the Winters doctrine is applicable whenever the water rights of American Indian tribes are considered in court. If the author were questioning the legal criteria at the end of the first paragraph, we would expect the second paragraph to present a contrary point of view, rather than extend the discussion of how the Winters doctrine has held up over time.

Quote:

(D) discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians

Although the Winters case is mentioned as a landmark case from which the decision reached by the Court could be applied retroactively, the passage does not really comment on whether this was the earliest date that the government took a stance on Native American water rights. Watch those superlatives (words ending in -st). Most of them prove easy to argue against, and this one is no exception.

Quote:

(E) point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations

What distinction might that be? If anything, the passage seems to describe the opposite of such a distinction, namely that the Winters doctrine can be applied to all Native American reservations. The second line of the passage says it all. Once again, 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. This decision is upheld consistently by the Court throughout the passage.

Show SpoilerAnalysis

Quote:

5. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38–42 [This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine.], and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 10–20 Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes]?

When the task is to describe a relationship between two different parts of the passage, it can help to lean on the answers to narrow the possible angles. A glance at the options reveals that they all begin with Arizona v. California, so we need to understand what that information is doing in the passage. Although the line that mentions the case is written in legalese, the main point is consistent with the rest of the passage. First, the line: 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. Translated, that comes to something like, The Court ruled that the Winters doctrine applies to any type of reservation created by the government. We can approach the answer choices with this consideration in mind.

Quote:

(A) Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.

There is no mention whatsoever of abolishing the three criteria, nor is there any discussion of establishing a new set of rules. We cannot make up information to project onto the passage.

Quote:

(B) Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.

Sound familiar? This is almost the same line of thought we pursued prior to taking on question one, when we were looking at the line, This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. Some of my best students have told me that at times, the questions themselves help to give shape to the passage. I have to agree in this case. Through and through, the passage discusses how the Court established and subsequently cited the Winters ruling to apply to a broader range of situations. This is our answer.

Quote:

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

If architectural metaphors are not your thing, you might have missed buttressed by in the line in which the Arizona v. California case appears. A buttress is meant to provide support for a structure, typically a wall. (Think of the flying buttresses of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.) The line in question indicates that the idea that a reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition is strengthened by the Arizona v. California case, about which, as discussed above, we are also told that the Winters doctrine was found to be applicable. The overreaching sole example ought to catch your eye, particularly since no exception to the Winters doctrine is mentioned in the passage.

Quote:

(D) Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.

The distinction drawn here is altogether wayward. We are told that the Winters doctrine is applicable in the Arizona v. California case. A direct reference to that doctrine is not necessary, not to mention that the contrast invokes a reliance on the Winters doctrine, and if Arizona v. California upheld the Winters ruling, then it should be clear that the case also relied on the Winters doctrine.

Quote:

(E) Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.

This other than distraction is no better than it was in answer choice (D) in question one. The Winters doctrine applies to Native Americans and their federally recognized lands and water rights.

Show SpoilerAnalysis

Quote:

6. The "pragmatic approach" mentioned in hightlight [sic] text of the passage is best defined as one that

We examined this very line in the previous question, so this ought to be easy.

Quote:

(A) grants recognition to reservations that were never formally established but that have traditionally been treated as such

Yes, this fits the bill. Any time you see this, these, its, or something similar at the beginning of a line, as we do in This pragmatic approach, you should back up a bit to contextualize this. Also, it helps to know that pragmatic is synonymous with practical. So, what is the practical approach that is referred to? The preceding line provides the answer: 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, even though the U.S. government never legally designated the pueblos, in this case, as reservations, they were treated as such already in a sort of unwritten arrangement.

Quote:

(B) determines the water rights of all citizens in a particular region by examining the actual history of water usage in that region

Although examining water usage through historical records or accounts might sound pragmatic, such an idea is not floated in the part of the passage we ourselves are examining. Furthermore, here we go again with all citizens when the line that contextualizes this in this pragmatic approach clearly refers to American Indian reservations.

Quote:

(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

Now, we are back in exception territory, and, just as we saw in answer choice (C) to the last question, the passage does not deal with exceptions to the broad applicability of the Winters doctrine. This answer choice is far afield of the main idea of the text and certainly cannot be supported with the information in the line that begins, What constitutes... If there is no textual evidence, then it cannot be correct.

Quote:

(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

There is a nice little wordplay going on here between pragmatic and practical, but the anticipated results of making a legal decision have no connection to the passage. Rather, the Court keeps considering how the U.S. government had intended to deal with the Native Americans. Besides, other citizens do not take priority here, as the final line of the passage makes clear.

Quote:

(E) dictates that courts ignore precedents set by such cases as Winters v. United States in deciding what water rights belong to reserved land

The word dictates is extreme, sort of the opposite of a pragmatic approach, and nowhere does the passage mention any courts ignoring legal precedents. The entire passage is centered on a landmark case and how that case served as the basis for subsequent legal decisions.

Show SpoilerAnalysis

Quote:

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

Be careful. This is another Inference question—suggests tells us as much. This does not give us license to "read between the lines." We still need to find direct textual evidence to support our answer. Here, we need to consider the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians, specifically as those rights pertain to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos. The last line of the passage covers all the keywords: 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.

Quote:

(A) guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v. California

Keep in mind, Arizona v. California is cited in the passage for two reasons: first, to comment on Native American reservations being a question of practice, not of legal definition; and, second, to indicate that the Winters doctrine could be brought to bear in the case. Thus, the rights of other citizens to the water flowing into the pueblos were not guaranteed by the Arizona v. California case.

Quote:

(B) abolished by the Winters doctrine

Abolished is extreme. It is not as though other citizens had no rights whatsoever to the water, just that, as the last line of the passage tells us, their claims to the water did not have priority over those of Pueblo Indians.

Quote:

(C) deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties explicitly require this

By now, I should sound like a broken record. The point of the passage is that treaties need not have mentioned certain matters for those treaties to be interpreted to pertain to such matters. No explicit mention is required. The first part of the answer choice is meant to trick the test-taker who reads the last line of the passage and does not bother to think about the latter half of the answer. Details can derail an otherwise reasonable answer.

Quote:

(D) guaranteed by federal land-use laws

Nothing adds up in this one. Where are federal land-use laws discussed in the passage with regard to citizens in general? If there is a line to be found, it is eluding me.

Quote:

(E) limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians

This is exactly what the closing line of the passage indicates, that, as of 1848, other citizens would have to defer to the Pueblo Indians when it came to the use of water flowing into the Rio Grande pueblos. Once again, there is nothing to argue against, so this is our answer.

Show SpoilerAnalysis

Quote:

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

Another Inference question, but we know that we cannot be loose with our interpretation of the passage. If we stick to what it says, as closely to what it says, we cannot go wrong. Here, we are concerned with something the Winters doctrine has been used to establish.

Quote:

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

How many times can we say that the point of the passage is to make it clear that the application of the Winters doctrine does not require the explicit mention of water rights in any legal documents? This should be a five-second elimination.

Quote:

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

This is the sort of answer that can be tempting to chase. However, we need to ask ourselves what the passage tells us—exactly what it tells us—about the Winters doctrine. The information in the first paragraph discusses preserving for [the Native Americans] the waters without which their lands would have been useless, and the three criteria that round out the paragraph all fall within the frame of federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes. The bookends of the second paragraph, the first and last sentences, also reference water rights. Thus, we can conclude that any application of the Winters doctrine concerns water rights for Native Americans. Whatever purposes the government might have for other federal lands falls outside the scope of the Winters doctrine.

Quote:

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

If the previous answer choice taught us anything, it is that the Winters doctrine established certain guidelines for access to water by Native Americans on reservations (either federally designated or merely treated as such through practice). Setting aside land without considering water rights is not discussed within the passage. The word criteria at the beginning of the answer choice ought to tip us off that the criteria in the first paragraph deal with, once again, federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes. Be careful when you match language. Some of the correct words do not necessarily add up to a correct answer.

Quote:

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

Like the last answer choice, this one presents the wrong detail—land instead of water. The Winters doctrine has not been applied to land claims, at least according to what the passage tells us, but to water rights.

Quote:

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

Notice how well this fits our analysis on the whole. The second line of the passage lays out the central idea of the Winters ruling, namely that the federal government... intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. We are told that the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold reservation did not mention water rights (see question 3 above), but that the Court pursued an implicit interpretation that would be equitable. This is our final answer.

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

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