Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 07:51 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 07:51
Close
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
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
tanu11
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 19 Apr 2019
Last visit: 27 Oct 2025
Posts: 97
Own Kudos:
178
 [9]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Kudos
Add Kudos
9
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
49,305
 [2]
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,305
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
Kattu
Joined: 04 May 2021
Last visit: 02 Mar 2023
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
49,305
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,305
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Kattu

To the author, in lines 56–58, the provincial court’s 1984 ruling on the unnamed group’s full ownership claim was “excessively conservative,” a judgment that relies on the assumption that other courts and other decisions were, or could have been, less so. The passage provides no evidence to that effect, but (A) does. If (A) is true, then there were precedents aplenty that this 1984 court could have followed to grant the group full ownership, but it failed to do so.

Answer: A

Kattu
Q.6 option (A)....How one can infer from passage that there were other courts in Ontario...?
avatar
NamaySharma
Joined: 21 Mar 2021
Last visit: 31 Dec 2021
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 26
Posts: 24
Kudos: 21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sajjad1994
Passage Summary

As the first sentence implies, the Topic is aboriginal rights and the Scope is the constitutional protection of those rights. It turns out that Canada’s aboriginal tribes had rights, but Canada decided to write them into the constitution so that they couldn’t be taken away. And that raises the problem of having to interpret the general language of the constitutional protections in specific circumstances.

Lines 19–27 tell us what was put into the Canadian constitution, and the rest of the passage gives examples of how “difficulties arise,” to quote the transitional phrase in line 24. “Indigenous” is hard to interpret (lines 25–39), so it’s tough for the tribes to document the origin of many of their customs. And “ownership” is hard to interpret (lines 40–63), so at least one aboriginal group is having a tough time establishing its property claims. The author pins his hopes for solving all of these problems on the Canadian Supreme Court, but he doesn’t sound too optimistic. Here’s a suggested Roadmap:

Paragraph 1—Probs. w/ constitutional language
Paragraph 2—Example: “indigenous” ambig.
Paragraph 3— Example: “ownership” ambig.

Hey Sajjad. Absolutely love the content you put out on GMATClub. It was a good passage.
I got questions 4 and 7 wrong. Could you share the OA regarding the same?
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
49,305
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,305
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Explanation

4. The passage provides the most evidence for the claim that the author has a negative attitude toward which one of the following?

Difficulty Level: 700+

Explanation

Because the right answer concerns an issue that the author is definitely negative about, you can either skim the passage in search of a categorical judgment, or simply work your way through the choices by eliminating those addressing issues about which the author is positive or on which he takes no stand.

(A) The author regrets the burden of interpretation placed on the courts (lines 11–14), but because it has to happen if the tribes’ rights are to be upheld, he must be in favor of it. Eliminate.

(B) He is aware of the difficulty of interpreting those (and other) terms, but again, the interpretation needs to get done. Eliminate.

(C) This criterion is straightforwardly reported in lines 34–36, without comment or point of view. Eliminate.

(D) This requirement is straightforwardly reported in lines 31–34, again without any editorializing. Eliminate with the confidence that (E) must work because it’s the only choice left.

(E) There you go: “the provincial court’s ruling was excessively conservative”—an unambiguously negative characterization. (E) is correct.

Answer: E
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
49,305
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,305
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Explanation

7. Based on the information in the passage, the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the 1984 case in Ontario?

Difficulty Level: 700+

Explanation

Before reading the choices, we need to reread paragraph 3 to get oriented. In doing so, we recall that the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership was upheld, but too narrowly (in the author’s view), because it failed to grant full rights to the aboriginal group.

(A)’s too-negative assessment is based on a misunderstanding of what’s going on. (A) sounds as if the provincial court’s ruling flew in the face of clear-ascrystal constitutional guidelines, but the whole point is that the issue of ownership is cloudy. That the author disagrees with the court’s too-narrow reading doesn’t rank as a charge of “direct contravention.” The issue is too ambiguous to support such a judgment. Eliminate.

(B)’s first 18 words are right on target, but instead of ending “...are not ruling appropriately,” the choice dribbles away into incoherence. Clearly the provincial court is authorized to rule. It did so. Eliminate.

(C) drags in paragraph 2’s requirement of documentation to prove ownership, which is irrelevant to the 1984 case in which the plaintiffs’ ownership was already a given. In other words, (C)’s documentary evidence was moot by that point. What was at stake was the extent of that ownership. Eliminate.

(D) In this context, “excessively conservative” means “too narrowly decided,” and cannot be read as an accusation against those who take a conservative political stance. Eliminate.

(E) is the only one left and gets it right: the plaintiffs’ ownership was correctly upheld, but in assessing the current law the court took too narrow a view. (E) is correct.

Answer: E
User avatar
tkorzhan1995
Joined: 16 Oct 2021
Last visit: 30 Aug 2022
Posts: 132
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Kudos: 16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sajjad1994, I redid this passage two times. I keep picking B for q4. From P2 and P3, we can derive that definition of ownership and indigenous is ambiguous. Therefore, there is a need to revise definition. Since definition is ambiguous, it is an indication that author's attitude is negative. Can you please help me to understand what is wrong with B for q4? What is the good reason to eliminate it right away?
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,305
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tkorzhan1995
Sajjad1994, I redid this passage two times. I keep picking B for q4. From P2 and P3, we can derive that definition of ownership and indigenous is ambiguous. Therefore, there is a need to revise definition. Since definition is ambiguous, it is an indication that author's attitude is negative. Can you please help me to understand what is wrong with B for q4? What is the good reason to eliminate it right away?

Since in line 13 the author referred to the general language as “necessary,” and it is that language that led to burdening the court, it is unlikely that the author has an extremely negative attitude toward burdening the provincial courts. The author may wish for a better scenario, but it is not logical to conclude that his or her attitude toward the burden on the court is negative. Hence we can eliminate (B)

While if you pay close attention to (E) this answer is easily justified because the author spent a good portion of the final paragraph condemning the provincial court’s “excessively conservative” interpretation, and implying that the provincial courts had done an unsatisfactory job (“Regrettably”). Based on these statements, it is clear that the author makes a negative evaluation of the provincial court’s decision.

E is the answer
avatar
RishabhMittal
Joined: 11 Jul 2020
Last visit: 10 Jun 2024
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 17
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
For Question 05 - I think the answer should be an option (E) The language of the Canadian constitution should more carefully delineate the instances to which reforms apply
instead of Option (B) Oral tradition should sometimes be considered legal documentation of certain indigenous customs

As in the passage its mentioned that Oral traditions are not considered - which means provisional courts have not relied on Oral Traditions but in option (B) Oral traditions should sometimes be considered - and the author no where says sometimes it should be considered - he just mentioned they are not considered without giving his own suggestion to this whether should be relied on oral sometimes or all-time - yes or no
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,305
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Explanation

5. The passage provides evidence to suggest that the author would be most likely to assent to which one of the following proposals?

Difficulty Level: 700+

Explanation

Even after reviewing the passage it might be tough to predict which one of the many possible proposals the author would favor, which one the testmaker chose as the right answer. But each of the five choices is vulnerable to careful analysis.

(A) Because the author is depending on Canada’s laws to protect aborigines’ rights, he would be hard-pressed to say that the aborigines shouldn’t be answerable to those laws. Eliminate.

(B) The end of paragraph 2 suggests that a society that has relied on oral tradition is at a disadvantage under the constitution’s requirement (lines 31–36) that customs be documented, so (B) is certainly a proposal that the author would favor, and is in fact the correct answer. (B) would remedy one of the problems that the author describes at length.

(C) goes further than the passage can support. After all, the constitution has been written to protect “only long-standing traditional customs” (line 30), and the fact that the author doesn’t protest that limitation is evidence that he doesn’t favor protecting “all” customs.

(D) That the author is unhappy with some of the provincial courts’ recent rulings cannot be construed as support for taking those courts out of the equation entirely. (D) is hoping that we generalize from one specific case in lines 58–63 (which does want the Canadian Supreme Court to overrule the provincial court) to all cases.

(E) Although the author would certainly be in favor of the clearest possible constitutional language, (E)’s proposal relates instead to the language that details the application of reforms; and that language—described in lines 19–23—seems, as far as the author is concerned, abundantly clear.

Answer: B
User avatar
tkorzhan1995
Joined: 16 Oct 2021
Last visit: 30 Aug 2022
Posts: 132
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Location: Canada
Posts: 132
Kudos: 16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sajjad1994, can you please clarify how you can infer from line 18 that provincial courts ruled appropriately?
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,831
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,831
Kudos: 986
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
17289 posts
189 posts