Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 23 Jul 2019, 04:32

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

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

# Tackling tough RC's - strategies

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2015
Posts: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V33
Tackling tough RC's - strategies  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2015, 23:02
I was going through some of the RC questions in OG-13. I came across a very difficult passage, for questions 56-62.

in-winters-v-united-states-1908-the-supreme-court-held-t-67133.html

I know that for many of you guys, the content is reasonably easy to grasp; but I am sure that there are a lot of guys like me who had absolutely no clue as to what this passage was trying to convey on the first read. I took 5+ minutes to read the passage, and still could not grasp what each paragraph was trying to convey, and how the paragraphs are related to one another. Not to mention the inference and specific detail questions that I answered incorrectly.

I understand the importance of going through as many relevant articles as possible in subjects like humanities, economics, science etc; but no matter how much you read, there is still a possibility that you encounter a passage that will completely stump you. Again, I could count my losses and contemplate skipping; but what if 4-5 questions are based on the same passage (which is very likely, since it is a long passage)?? IT WOULD BE A BIG GAMBLE.

So I call out the verbal experts out there, to kindly share views/opinions/strategies on what exactly to do when you come across a tough passage as this.
_________________
If you like the question I won't mind any Kudos
Target: 750
Intern
Joined: 13 Jun 2015
Posts: 22
Re: Tackling tough RC's - strategies  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2015, 05:28
3
1
NightsKing wrote:
I was going through some of the RC questions in OG-13. I came across a very difficult passage, for questions 56-62.

I know that for many of you guys, the content is reasonably easy to grasp; but I am sure that there are a lot of guys like me who had absolutely no clue as to what this passage was trying to convey on the first read. I took 5+ minutes to read the passage, and still could not grasp what each paragraph was trying to convey, and how the paragraphs are related to one another. Not to mention the inference and specific detail questions that I answered incorrectly.

I understand the importance of going through as many relevant articles as possible in subjects like humanities, economics, science etc; but no matter how much you read, there is still a possibility that you encounter a passage that will completely stump you. Again, I could count my losses and contemplate skipping; but what if 4-5 questions are based on the same passage (which is very likely, since it is a long passage)?? IT WOULD BE A BIG GAMBLE.

So I call out the verbal experts out there, to kindly share views/opinions/strategies on what exactly to do when you come across a tough passage as this.

Hi Nightsking

To begin with , try to identify the main topic of the sentence. In simple terms, figure out "what the passage is about?"/ "who is the hero of the story?"

Next you need to identify the "Scope" of this "topic". What about the topic? For example: if the passage is on birds, then the topic is "birds". Now the passage could be about the habitat/ species/ habits/ colors... or anything about the birds. "that thing" is the scope of the passage.

Now, let's try to simplify this passage:

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.

- as you read, keep a check on what the passage is about... so far it looks like something about right to use waters. As per the court right was reserved to American indian by some treaty. Don''t get into too many details right now. The idea is to get the gist of the passage and not to remember each and every thing. The passage is not going anywhere. You can always come back to it for specific details.

- read with anticipation. As the first sentence talks about some treaty restricting right to use water. The author may expand on it.

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.

- facts we get to know here:

>treaty didn't mention rights
(you need to connect it with first line now.
which rights? right to use water! ...
which reservation? waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians

first line tells us that right was reserved by treaty, second line tells us that treaty didn't mention water right but court intended to be fair.

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.

This paragraph states the situations in which a court can find rights to reserve water. Try the rest of the passage in a similar way and do let me know if you face any problem.

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.

Happy Prepping!

Dolly
Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2015
Posts: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V33
Re: Tackling tough RC's - strategies  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2015, 08:14
DollySharma wrote:
NightsKing wrote:
I was going through some of the RC questions in OG-13. I came across a very difficult passage, for questions 56-62.

I know that for many of you guys, the content is reasonably easy to grasp; but I am sure that there are a lot of guys like me who had absolutely no clue as to what this passage was trying to convey on the first read. I took 5+ minutes to read the passage, and still could not grasp what each paragraph was trying to convey, and how the paragraphs are related to one another. Not to mention the inference and specific detail questions that I answered incorrectly.

I understand the importance of going through as many relevant articles as possible in subjects like humanities, economics, science etc; but no matter how much you read, there is still a possibility that you encounter a passage that will completely stump you. Again, I could count my losses and contemplate skipping; but what if 4-5 questions are based on the same passage (which is very likely, since it is a long passage)?? IT WOULD BE A BIG GAMBLE.

So I call out the verbal experts out there, to kindly share views/opinions/strategies on what exactly to do when you come across a tough passage as this.

Hi Nightsking

To begin with , try to identify the main topic of the sentence. In simple terms, figure out "what the passage is about?"/ "who is the hero of the story?"

Next you need to identify the "Scope" of this "topic". What about the topic? For example: if the passage is on birds, then the topic is "birds". Now the passage could be about the habitat/ species/ habits/ colors... or anything about the birds. "that thing" is the scope of the passage.

Now, let's try to simplify this passage:

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.

- as you read, keep a check on what the passage is about... so far it looks like something about right to use waters. As per the court right was reserved to American indian by some treaty. Don''t get into too many details right now. The idea is to get the gist of the passage and not to remember each and every thing. The passage is not going anywhere. You can always come back to it for specific details.

- read with anticipation. As the first sentence talks about some treaty restricting right to use water. The author may expand on it.

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.

- facts we get to know here:

>treaty didn't mention rights
(you need to connect it with first line now.
which rights? right to use water! ...
which reservation? waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians

first line tells us that right was reserved by treaty, second line tells us that treaty didn't mention water right but court intended to be fair.

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.

This paragraph states the situations in which a court can find rights to reserve water. Try the rest of the passage in a similar way and do let me know if you face any problem.

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.

Happy Prepping!

Dolly

The part that confused me.

Treaty didn't mention rights
(you need to connect it with first line now.
which rights? right to use water! ...
which reservation? waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians

first line tells us that right was reserved by treaty, second line tells us that treaty didn't mention water right but court intended to be fair.

The right was reserved by the treaty, yet the treaty did not mention the rights. Am I missing something here?

what is the author is trying to convey in this passage??

Anyways a systematic breakdown like you mentioned can help, but what if I have already spent a lot of time reading the passage, but still not understood the gist of it?
_________________
If you like the question I won't mind any Kudos
Target: 750
Intern
Joined: 13 Jun 2015
Posts: 22
Re: Tackling tough RC's - strategies  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2015, 11:30
Quote:

The part that confused me.

Treaty didn't mention rights
(you need to connect it with first line now.
which rights? right to use water! ...
which reservation? waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians

first line tells us that right was reserved by treaty, second line tells us that treaty didn't mention water right but court intended to be fair.

The right was reserved by the treaty, yet the treaty did not mention the rights. Am I missing something here?

what is the author is trying to convey in this passage??

Anyways a systematic breakdown like you mentioned can help, but what if I have already spent a lot of time reading the passage, but still not understood the gist of it?

Let me reword it.

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 Indiansby 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.

From the highlighted part, we get to know that ruling of the court was based on a treaty. Further we get to know that treaty by itself didn't mention water rights, however, court took such a stand stating that government created the reservation intended to deal fairly with ....

What can explain court's decision?

Later on, referring this (winters v. US) case, other decisions established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes (as in this case, court held the water rights for American Indians without the treaty mentioning it).

Map the complete passage and your understanding of it will surely get better.

Best!

Happy Prepping!

Dolly
Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2015
Posts: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V33
Re: Tackling tough RC's - strategies  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2015, 19:02
DollySharma wrote:
Quote:

The part that confused me.

Treaty didn't mention rights
(you need to connect it with first line now.
which rights? right to use water! ...
which reservation? waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians

first line tells us that right was reserved by treaty, second line tells us that treaty didn't mention water right but court intended to be fair.

The right was reserved by the treaty, yet the treaty did not mention the rights. Am I missing something here?

what is the author is trying to convey in this passage??

Anyways a systematic breakdown like you mentioned can help, but what if I have already spent a lot of time reading the passage, but still not understood the gist of it?

Let me reword it.

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 Indiansby 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.

From the highlighted part, we get to know that ruling of the court was based on a treaty. Further we get to know that treaty by itself didn't mention water rights, however, court took such a stand stating that government created the reservation intended to deal fairly with ....

What can explain court's decision?

Later on, referring this (winters v. US) case, other decisions established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes (as in this case, court held the water rights for American Indians without the treaty mentioning it).

Map the complete passage and your understanding of it will surely get better.

Best!

Happy Prepping!

Dolly

Now it makes some sense. Will work on the questions now.

Thanks for your patience, Dolly!! Appreciate it.
_________________
If you like the question I won't mind any Kudos
Target: 750
Intern
Joined: 13 Jun 2015
Posts: 22
Tackling tough RC's - strategies  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2015, 07:06
1
Quote:

Now it makes some sense. Will work on the questions now.

Thanks for your patience, Dolly!! Appreciate it.

Great!

Happpy to help!

Dolly
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4845
Re: Tackling tough RC's - strategies  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2018, 23:27
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: Tackling tough RC's - strategies   [#permalink] 18 Sep 2018, 23:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by