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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
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- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
Updated on: 06 Oct 2019, 22:59
Originally posted by NightsKing on 16 Jun 2015, 23:02.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 06 Oct 2019, 22:59, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 06 Oct 2019, 22:59, edited 1 time in total.
Updated - Complete topic (809).
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
17 Jun 2015, 05:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
NightsKing
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
General Discussion
17 Jun 2015, 08:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
DollySharma
Thanks for the reply, 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?
