GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 25 May 2020, 04:35

### 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

# The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Club team member
Status: GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 5887
GPA: 3.62
The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 27 Sep 2019, 00:13
2
1
4
Question 1
00:00

based on 149 sessions

77% (03:07) correct 23% (03:13) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00

based on 194 sessions

47% (01:52) correct 53% (02:08) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00

based on 189 sessions

38% (01:26) correct 62% (01:21) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00

based on 183 sessions

53% (00:54) correct 47% (00:59) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 5
00:00

based on 183 sessions

44% (01:25) correct 56% (01:29) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 6
00:00

based on 176 sessions

53% (00:45) correct 47% (00:50) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 7
00:00

based on 167 sessions

67% (00:47) correct 33% (01:09) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

New Project RC Butler 2019 - Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday
Passage # 243, Date : 02-Aug-2019
This post is a part of New Project RC Butler 2019. Click here for Details

The United States Supreme Court has not
always resolved legal issues of concern to Native
Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian
nations. Many of the Court’s decisions have been
(5) products of political compromise that looked more
to the temper of the times than to enduring
principles of law. But accommodation is part of the
judicial system in the United States, and judicial
decisions must be assessed with this fact in mind.

(10) Despite the “accommodating” nature of the
judicial system, it is worth noting that the power of
the Supreme Court has been exercised in a manner
that has usually been beneficial to Native
Americans, at least on minor issues, and has not
(15) been wholly detrimental on the larger, more
important issues. Certainly there have been
decisions that cast doubt on the validity of this
assertion. Some critics point to the patronizing tone
of many Court opinions and the apparent rejection
(20) of Native American values as important points to
consider when reviewing a case. However, the
validity of the assertion can be illustrated by
reference to two important contributions that have
resulted from the exercise of judicial power.

(25) First, the Court has created rules of judicial
construction that, in general, favor the rights of
Native American litigants. The Court’s attitude has
been conditioned by recognition of the distinct
(30) dealing with settlers in the past. Treaties were
inevitably written in English for the benefit of their
authors, whereas tribal leaders were accustomed to
making treaties without any written account, on the
strength of mutual promises sealed by religious
(35) commitment and individual integrity. The written
treaties were often broken, and Native Americans
were confronted with fraud and political and
military aggression. The Court recognizes that past
unfairness to Native Americans cannot be
(40) sanctioned by the force of law. Therefore,
ambiguities in treaties are to be interpreted in favor
of the Native American claimants, treaties are to be
interpreted as the Native Americans would have
understood them, and, under the reserved rights
(45) doctrine, treaties reserve to Native Americans all
rights that have not been specifically granted away
in other treaties.

A second achievement of the judicial system is
the protection that has been provided against
(50) encroachment by the states into tribal affairs.
Federal judges are not inclined to view favorably
efforts to extend states’ powers and jurisdictions
because of the direct threat that such expansion
poses to the exercise of federal powers. In the
(55) absence of a federal statute directly and clearly
allocating a function to the states, federal judges are
inclined to reserve for the federal government—and
the tribal governments under its charge—all those
powers and rights they can be said to have
possessed historically.

1. According to the passage, one reason why the United States Supreme Court “has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations” (lines 1–4) is that

(A) Native Americans have been prevented from presenting their concerns persuasively
(B) the Court has failed to recognize that the Indian nations’ concerns are different from those of other groups or from those of the federal government
(C) the Court has been reluctant to curtail the powers of the federal government
(D) Native Americans faced distinct disadvantages in dealing with settlers in the past
(E) the Court has made political compromises in deciding some cases

2. It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme Court decision that

(A) demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important
(B) protected the rights of the states in conflicts with the federal government
(C) demonstrated recognition of the unfair treatment Native Americans received in the past
(D) reflected consideration of the hardships suffered by Native Americans because of unfair treaties
(E) prevented repetition of inequities experienced by Native Americans in the past

3. It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to

(A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case

4. The author’s attitude toward the United States Supreme Court’s resolution of legal issues of concern to Native Americans can best be described as one of

(A) wholehearted endorsement
(B) restrained appreciation
(C) detached objectivity
(D) cautious opposition
(E) suppressed exasperation

5. It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states’ powers and jurisdictions with respect to Native American affairs would be

(A) possible only with the consent of the Indian nations
(B) favorably viewed by the United States Supreme Court
(C) in the best interests of both state and federal governments
(D) detrimental to the interests of Native Americans
(E) discouraged by most federal judges in spite of legal precedents supporting the extension

6. The author’s primary purpose is to

(A) contrast opposing views
(C) reconcile divergent opinions
(D) assess the claims made by disputants
(E) provide evidence to support a contention

7. It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans to have been

(A) irreproachable on legal grounds
(B) reasonably supportive in most situations
(C) guided by enduring principles of law
(D) misguided but generally harmless
(E) harmful only in a few minor cases

• Source: LSAT Official PrepTest 16 (September 1995)
• Difficulty Level: 700

_________________

Last edited by SajjadAhmad on 27 Sep 2019, 00:13, edited 1 time in total.
Updated - Complete topic (710).
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2019
Posts: 24
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2019, 09:21

Also, what would this be rated as on the difficulty scale?

Thanks
GMAT Club team member
Status: GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 5887
GPA: 3.62
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Aug 2019, 09:24
Hello kanikab

Please point out the question you are referring to.

Thanks

kanikab wrote:

Also, what would this be rated as on the difficulty scale?

Thanks

_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 342
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2019, 00:21
I am totally confused by this passage. I cannot connect each paragraph or get the logic of this passage, although i read this passage more than 5 times. It this passage hard or am i too weak at reading comprehension.

Here is what i get from the passage , i did not get the logic , please help clarify how to attack this passage
P1: the US supreme court has not solve some issues in the way that favor Indian nations
But accommodation is judicial and be assess the fact
P2: but Supreme court favor Native Americans
Some doubt the valid.
Valid is been illustrated (i predict there are more details of illustration)
P3: first illustration--court inclined to Native Americans
P4: second illustration -- protect Native Americans, not extend power, the powers are possessed historically.

I don’t understand, P1 says accommodation is judicial, later paragraphs don’t mention accommodations. P2 says valid is illustrated, but P3 says supreme court prefer to Native Americans, P4 says protect Native American (the same as “against encroachment into tribal affairs) . I did not get the logic or link among each paragraph.

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2446
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 03:11
1
All correct except Q3 in 13 mins, including 4 mins 45 seconds to read
Para 1- SC resolutions have not always pleased Native Americans, accommodation
Para 2- power of the Supreme Court has been exercised has in a manner that has been beneficial(minor issue) or not wholly detrimental(larger issues) for natives
Para 3- achievements of Judicial system- rules of judicial construction that, in general, favor the rights of Native American litigants.
Para 4- the protection that has been provided against encroachment by the states into tribal affairs.

1. According to the passage, one reason why the United States Supreme Court “has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations” (lines 1–4) is that
(E) the Court has made political compromises in deciding some cases
Many of the Court’s decisions have been products of political compromise that looked more to the temper of the times than to enduring principles of law.

2. It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme Court decision that

(A) demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important
Some critics point to the patronizing tone of many Court opinions and the apparent rejection of Native American values as important points to consider when reviewing a case.

3. It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to

(A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyTargetTestPrep , DmitryFarber , VeritasKarishma , generis , jennpt , VeritasPrepErika , other experts - please provide your inputs for question 3

4. The author’s attitude toward the United States Supreme Court’s resolution of legal issues of concern to Native Americans can best be described as one of

(A) wholehearted endorsement- incorrect, Certainly there have been decisions that cast doubt on the validity of this assertion
(B) restrained appreciation- Correct
(C) detached objectivity- incorrect, the author is not completely objective as he specifies his appreciation in para 3 and 4
(D) cautious opposition- incorrect, the author does not oppose
(E) suppressed exasperation- incorrect, the author is not annoyed

5. It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states’ powers and jurisdictions with respect to Native American affairs would be
(D) detrimental to the interests of Native Americans- Correct
A second achievement of the judicial system is the protection that has been provided against encroachment by the states into tribal affairs.

6. The author’s primary purpose is to
(A) contrast opposing views- incorrect, no opposing views have been contrasted
(C) reconcile divergent opinions- incorrect
(D) assess the claims made by disputants- incorrect
(E) provide evidence to support a contention- Correct, the contention is whether SC has resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has been beneficial for the Native Americans

7. It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans to have been

(A) irreproachable on legal grounds- incorrect
(B) reasonably supportive in most situations- Correct,
it is worth noting that the power of the Supreme Court has been exercised in a manner that has usually been beneficial to Native Americans, at least on minor issues, and has not been wholly detrimental on the larger, more important issues.

(C) guided by enduring principles of law- incorrect, Many of the Court’s decisions have been products of political compromise that looked more to the temper of the times than to enduring principles of law.
(D) misguided but generally harmless- incorrect
(E) harmful only in a few minor cases - incorrect, it is worth noting that the power of the Supreme Court has been exercised in a manner that has usually been beneficial to Native
Americans, at least on minor issues, and has not been wholly detrimental on the larger, more important issues.
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 227
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.54
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 07:02
skywalker,
How did you reject option D in Q6.

The passage is mainly about how in many cases the supreme courts are in favor of the native people. But, Some critics point to the patronizing tone
of many Court opinions and the apparent rejection of native american tribal values. Then the assertion was evaluated with 2 examples. Option D talks about the evaluation of claims made by the opposition.
GMAT Club team member
Status: GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 5887
GPA: 3.62
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 07:33

Topic and Scope:

Supreme Court decisions affecting Native Americans; specifically, whether Supreme Court decisions have been beneficial to Native American interests.

Purpose and Main Idea: The author’s purpose is to argue that Supreme Court decisions have often been beneficial to Native American interests; specifically, he argues that the court has usually favored Native American interests on small issues, while it has sometimes favored them on large issues too.

Paragraph Structure:

Para 1 and 2 spell out the view of those who claim that the Supreme Court hasn’t favored Native American interests, as well as the author’s counterargument. Note the role of the Keywords “Despite” (line 10) and “However” (line 21), both of which signal that an authorial opinion follows.

In Para 3 and 4, the author provides evidence to support his view. In Para 3, he notes that the Supreme Court has interpreted existing treaties in ways that promote Native American interests. In Para 4, he notes that the court has restricted state governments from encroaching on Native American powers and rights.

The Big Picture:

• Note the classic structure of this passage. Competing points of view are described, and evidence is then presented to show that one is more compelling than the other.

• Since the author’s voice is apparent early on in the text, a passage like this one is best tackled sooner rather than later on test day. More descriptive passages, in which it’s not so easy to see what the author’s thinking and doing, are best left for later.

Hope it helps

zoezhuyan wrote:
I am totally confused by this passage. I cannot connect each paragraph or get the logic of this passage, although i read this passage more than 5 times. It this passage hard or am i too weak at reading comprehension.

Here is what i get from the passage , i did not get the logic , please help clarify how to attack this passage
P1: the US supreme court has not solve some issues in the way that favor Indian nations
But accommodation is judicial and be assess the fact
P2: but Supreme court favor Native Americans
Some doubt the valid.
Valid is been illustrated (i predict there are more details of illustration)
P3: first illustration--court inclined to Native Americans
P4: second illustration -- protect Native Americans, not extend power, the powers are possessed historically.

I don’t understand, P1 says accommodation is judicial, later paragraphs don’t mention accommodations. P2 says valid is illustrated, but P3 says supreme court prefer to Native Americans, P4 says protect Native American (the same as “against encroachment into tribal affairs) . I did not get the logic or link among each paragraph.

_________________
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 10441
Location: Pune, India
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2019, 21:15
1
New Project RC Butler 2019 - Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday
Passage # 243, Date : 02-Aug-2019
This post is a part of New Project RC Butler 2019. Click here for Details

The United States Supreme Court has not
always resolved legal issues of concern to Native
Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian
nations. Many of the Court’s decisions have been
(5) products of political compromise that looked more
to the temper of the times than to enduring
principles of law. But accommodation is part of the
judicial system in the United States, and judicial
decisions must be assessed with this fact in mind.

(10) Despite the “accommodating” nature of the
judicial system, it is worth noting that the power of
the Supreme Court has been exercised in a manner
that has usually been beneficial to Native
Americans, at least on minor issues, and has not
(15) been wholly detrimental on the larger, more
important issues. Certainly there have been
decisions that cast doubt on the validity of this
assertion. Some critics point to the patronizing tone
of many Court opinions and the apparent rejection
(20) of Native American values as important points to
consider when reviewing a case. However, the
validity of the assertion can be illustrated by
reference to two important contributions that have
resulted from the exercise of judicial power.

(25) First, the Court has created rules of judicial
construction that, in general, favor the rights of
Native American litigants. The Court’s attitude has
been conditioned by recognition of the distinct
(30) dealing with settlers in the past. Treaties were
inevitably written in English for the benefit of their
authors, whereas tribal leaders were accustomed to
making treaties without any written account, on the
strength of mutual promises sealed by religious
(35) commitment and individual integrity. The written
treaties were often broken, and Native Americans
were confronted with fraud and political and
military aggression. The Court recognizes that past
unfairness to Native Americans cannot be
(40) sanctioned by the force of law. Therefore,
ambiguities in treaties are to be interpreted in favor
of the Native American claimants, treaties are to be
interpreted as the Native Americans would have
understood them, and, under the reserved rights
(45) doctrine, treaties reserve to Native Americans all
rights that have not been specifically granted away
in other treaties.

A second achievement of the judicial system is
the protection that has been provided against
(50) encroachment by the states into tribal affairs.
Federal judges are not inclined to view favorably
efforts to extend states’ powers and jurisdictions
because of the direct threat that such expansion
poses to the exercise of federal powers. In the
(55) absence of a federal statute directly and clearly
allocating a function to the states, federal judges are
inclined to reserve for the federal government—and
the tribal governments under its charge—all those
powers and rights they can be said to have
possessed historically.

1. According to the passage, one reason why the United States Supreme Court “has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations” (lines 1–4) is that

(A) Native Americans have been prevented from presenting their concerns persuasively
(B) the Court has failed to recognize that the Indian nations’ concerns are different from those of other groups or from those of the federal government
(C) the Court has been reluctant to curtail the powers of the federal government
(D) Native Americans faced distinct disadvantages in dealing with settlers in the past
(E) the Court has made political compromises in deciding some cases

2. It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme Court decision that

(A) demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important
(B) protected the rights of the states in conflicts with the federal government
(C) demonstrated recognition of the unfair treatment Native Americans received in the past
(D) reflected consideration of the hardships suffered by Native Americans because of unfair treaties
(E) prevented repetition of inequities experienced by Native Americans in the past

3. It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to

(A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case

4. The author’s attitude toward the United States Supreme Court’s resolution of legal issues of concern to Native Americans can best be described as one of

(A) wholehearted endorsement
(B) restrained appreciation
(C) detached objectivity
(D) cautious opposition
(E) suppressed exasperation

5. It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states’ powers and jurisdictions with respect to Native American affairs would be

(A) possible only with the consent of the Indian nations
(B) favorably viewed by the United States Supreme Court
(C) in the best interests of both state and federal governments
(D) detrimental to the interests of Native Americans
(E) discouraged by most federal judges in spite of legal precedents supporting the extension

6. The author’s primary purpose is to

(A) contrast opposing views
(C) reconcile divergent opinions
(D) assess the claims made by disputants
(E) provide evidence to support a contention

7. It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans to have been

(A) irreproachable on legal grounds
(B) reasonably supportive in most situations
(C) guided by enduring principles of law
(D) misguided but generally harmless
(E) harmful only in a few minor cases

• Source: LSAT Official PrepTest 16 (September 1995)
• Difficulty Level: Will update after 30+ timer attempts

3. It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to

(A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case

First paragraph: "The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations. Many of the Court’s decisions have been products of political compromise that looked more to the temper of the times than to enduring principles of law. But accommodation is part of the judicial system in the United States, and judicial decisions must be assessed with this fact in mind."

The author says that the court has not always favoured the Native Americans. The decisions looked more to 'temper of the times' than 'principles of law'. So the decisions were as per the current environment instead of just law. This is accommodation.
The author goes on to say that accommodation is part of the judicial system.
Thereafter he says "Despite the “accommodating” nature of the judicial system, it is worth noting that the power of the Supreme Court has been exercised in a manner that has usually been beneficial to Native Americans"

So he uses "accommodating" to suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favoured Native Americans. He says that the judicial system is accommodating. That is why it has not always favoured the Native Americans.

(C) is correct.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 390
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2019, 06:50
2
Hi everyone,
took 14 minutes and got 6/7 correct. Took 5:30 minutes to read, write down paragraphs summaries and main point.

P1: Court accommodating approach towards natives
P2: A beneficial aspect of courts towards natives
P3: 1st achievement
P4: 2nd achievement

MP: the court approach and achievements towards natives

1. According to the passage, one reason why the United States Supreme Court “has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations” (lines 1–4) is that

Pre thinking:
refer to lines 1-4. The reason is that compromises were made.

(A) Native Americans have been prevented from presenting their concerns persuasively
Nowhere mentioned in the passage. Hence incorrect

(B) the Court has failed to recognize that the Indian nations’ concerns are different from those of other groups or from those of the federal government
never mentioned in this context. Hence incorrect

(C) the Court has been reluctant to curtail the powers of the federal government
out of context. Hence incorrect

(D) Native Americans faced distinct disadvantages in dealing with settlers in the past
out of context. Hence incorrect

(E) the Court has made political compromises in deciding some cases
yes as stated in the first paragraph. Hence correct.

2. It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme Court decision that

Pre-thinking:
The objection at hand is that courts don't take native values into consideration when evaluating cases. So in order to make up for this "incorrect" behavior courts should take those value into consideration

(A) demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important
Correct as in line with our pre-thinking

(B) protected the rights of the states in conflicts with the federal government
out of context and out of the concern of the critics. Hence incorrect

(C) demonstrated recognition of the unfair treatment Native Americans received in the past
out of the critics concern. Hence incorrect.

(D) reflected consideration of the hardships suffered by Native Americans because of unfair treaties
out of the critics concern. Hence incorrect

(E) prevented repetition of inequities experienced by Native Americans in the past
close but since we don't know whether those inequities depended on not taking into consideration natives values this answer choice is inconsistent. Hence incorrect

3. It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to

Pre-thinking:
The purpose of "accommodating in the second paragraph is to highlight a contrast. The contrast is accommodating behavior VS beneficial approach towards native in most cases. So the purpose is to highlight the beneficial approach towards natives most of the times.

(A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
Cannot be inferred. Hence incorrect

(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
Which goals? out of scope. Hence incorrect

(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
In order to mark this answer choice as the correct one we need to extend the job done with our pre-thinking. Since in most of the cases the court approach was beneficial to natives we can infer that there were cases in which that approach would lead to some disadvantages. As well we can link this new information with the accommodating behavior as the cause of these few cases. Hence correct

(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
No. Values were not taken into consideration as the critics state. Hence incorrect

(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case
nowhere mentioned and quite extreme. Hence incorrect

4. The author’s attitude toward the United States Supreme Court’s resolution of legal issues of concern to Native Americans can best be described as one of

Pre-thinking:
Looking at P2,P3,P4 we can see that the author attitude is quite positive towards the improvements made by the court

(A) wholehearted endorsement
This option is too extreme and it does not take into consideration the accommodating behavior and the exclusion of natives values. Hence incorrect

(B) restrained appreciation
I would say this is the closest since the author shows indeed some appreciation. Hence correct

(C) detached objectivity
I initially though this was the right answer since I saw the passage as an objective presentation of information but looking at the structure the positive aspects outweigh the negative ones and we can not talk about objectivity since the author supports in part the court approach. Hence correct

(D) cautious opposition
Opposite. The author support the court. Hence incorrect

(E) suppressed exasperation
Too extreme and definitely not the author's point of view. Hence incorrect

5. It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states’ powers and jurisdictions with respect to Native American affairs would be

Pre-thinking:
Refer to the last paragraph and especially to this portion: "Federal judges are not inclined to view favorably
efforts to extend states’ powers and jurisdictions
because of the direct threat that such expansion
poses to the exercise of federal powers."

(A) possible only with the consent of the Indian nations
Never mentioned. Hence incorrect

(B) favorably viewed by the United States Supreme Court
opposite. Hence incorrect

(C) in the best interests of both state and federal governments
Opposite. Hence incorrect

(D) detrimental to the interests of Native Americans
Refer to the first line of P4. Hence correct

(E) discouraged by most federal judges in spite of legal precedents supporting the extension
Never mentioned. Hence incorrect

6. The author’s primary purpose is to

Pre thinking:
Refer to our main point formulation

(A) contrast opposing views
opposing views are not the main subject of the passage. Critics are mentioned only in P2 as a detail. Hence incorrect

No traditional belief is reevaluated. Hence incorrect

(C) reconcile divergent opinions
No opinion is reconciled. Hence incorrect

(D) assess the claims made by disputants
No claim is assessed. Hence incorrect

(E) provide evidence to support a contention
Very different from our main point but we can try to work on this nonetheless. First the contention can be identified in the beneficial improved approach of the court towards native while the evidence is represented by the last two paragraphs(rules in favor of natives and protection against encroachment). Hence correct

7. It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans to have been

Pre-thinking:
the author believes the court to have improved and to have favored natives in the majority of the cases although the accommodating behavior

(A) irreproachable on legal grounds
Inconsistent because of irreproachable. The author acknowledges that compromise rather than laws drives court's behavior but it doesn't condemn court since this behavior is in favor of natives. Hence incorrect

(B) reasonably supportive in most situations
In line with prethinking. Hence correct

(C) guided by enduring principles of law
Opposite. Guided by compromise. Hence incorrect

(D) misguided but generally harmless
It is not harmless since there were cases in which the natives did not benefit from court's behavior. Hence incorrect

(E) harmful only in a few minor cases
Inconsistent because of Minor. It's true that in few cases the court was not fair but we are not given whether those cases were minor or not. Hence incorrect.
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 129
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2020, 21:12
Hi Experts,

Please kindly post OE for 2,5,and 7.

Thank you.
GMAT Club team member
Status: GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 5887
GPA: 3.62
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2020, 00:08
ballest127 wrote:
Hi Experts,

Please kindly post OE for 2,5,and 7.

Thank you.

Explanation

2. It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme Court decision that

Difficulty Level: 700

Explanation

In lines 18-21, we’re told that some critics of the Supreme Court’s behavior object “to the patronizing tone of many Court opinions and the apparent rejection of Native American values as important points to consider when reviewing a case.” These critics, then, would be satisfied if a court decision “demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important.”

(B) Protecting the rights of states in conflicts with the federal government would probably mean harming Native American interests; hence, the critics mentioned in line 18 would be very unlikely to support a court decision that proved beneficial to states.

(C), (D), and (E) Supreme Court decisions already take into account past unfair treatment of Native Americans (C) and past hardships suffered by them (D), and are intended to prevent any recurrence of past injustices (E). Moreover, the critics mentioned in line 18 don’t claim otherwise.

5. It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states’ powers and jurisdictions with respect to Native American affairs would be

Difficulty Level: 700

Explanation

This choice echoes the central point of para 4 (see especially lines 48-50).

(A) The author thinks that the federal judicial system has sole authority to extend the powers and jurisdictions of states. Why else would he praise it for not doing so?

(B) Lines 51-52 say that federal judges (and Supreme Court judges are certainly federal judges) “are not inclined to view favorably efforts to extend states’ powers and jurisdictions...”

(C) Lines 53-54 say that federal judges are against extending the powers and jurisdictions of states because this would threaten the federal government’s powers and jurisdictions.

(E) What legal precedents? None are mentioned in the passage.

7. It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans to have been

Difficulty Level: 650

Explanation

Lines 11-16 indicate that the author believes that the Supreme Court has generally been supportive of Native Americans.

(A) and (C) Since the author notes that Supreme Court decisions have sometimes been based on political expediency rather than legal principle (lines 4-7), he clearly wouldn’t argue that its decisions are “irreproachable on legal grounds” (A) or always “guided by enduring principles of law” (C).

(D) To the contrary, the author generally endorses the Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans.

(E) The author never says that the Supreme Court has harmed Native Americans.

Hope it helps
_________________
Re: The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues o   [#permalink] 03 Apr 2020, 00:08