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.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
Updated on: 12 May 2020, 07:52
Originally posted by AkshdeepS on 24 Nov 2018, 04:24.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 12 May 2020, 07:52, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 12 May 2020, 07:52, edited 2 times in total.
Updated - Complete topic (635).
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 1
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
81% (03:01) correct
19%
(03:07) wrong
based on 457
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 2
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
50% (00:49) correct 50%
(00:45) wrong
based on 487
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 3
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
84% (00:58) correct 16%
(01:11) wrong
based on 469
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Question 4
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
53% (01:36) correct 47%
(01:44) wrong
based on 468
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Project RC Butler 2020 - Participate and win GMAT Club Tests.
Passage # 83, Date: 12-May-2020
This post is a part of Project RC Butler 2020. Click here for Details
Passage # 83, Date: 12-May-2020
This post is a part of Project RC Butler 2020. Click here for Details
Scholars of Native American history are profoundly interested in termination, the Truman-era policy of ending Indian tribes’ special status with the federal government. In ending federal wardship, the government sought to enhance individual and tribal “self-determination,” but, in fact, in most cases, the policy’s effect was quite the opposite: Indian individuals and communities were dispossessed of the land, rights, benefits, and aid that were their due and that were necessary for such self-determination. The policy is considered to have had devastating effects on terminated tribes’ economies, autonomies, and cultures.
To understand the failure of termination as a whole, historians have had to look at tribes individually, as each tribe’s relationship with the federal government was and is as nearly as unique as each tribal culture itself. Most notable, perhaps, for the complexity of the issue are the cases of California tribes. At the time, a significant number of Native Californians did not live on tribal land, so for the promise of per capita distributions, many initially supported termination. In 1958, 44 California Indian groups were terminated, with tribal lands to be distributed to individual tribal members, and general services, such as improved sanitation, water, education, and roads, to be delivered by the federal government. However, in many communities, the promised improvements never materialized. Moreover, in many cases, individual tribal members did not receive a land allotment.
Perhaps worse than the unkept promises of material improvements was the loss of autonomy tribes suffered with termination’s shifting laws and responsibilities. Once a tribe was terminated, and the government-to-government relationship severed, tribes were regarded as a state’s responsibility. In many cases, states were unwilling or unable to provide services for their new constituents. Moreover, Public Law 280, which gave six states—including California—criminal jurisdiction in previously sovereign Indian lands, was largely opposed by both states and Indian communities. States were disinclined to enforce laws on a larger area without any additional funding, and Indian communities were loath to have outside law enforcement without prior consent.
To understand the failure of termination as a whole, historians have had to look at tribes individually, as each tribe’s relationship with the federal government was and is as nearly as unique as each tribal culture itself. Most notable, perhaps, for the complexity of the issue are the cases of California tribes. At the time, a significant number of Native Californians did not live on tribal land, so for the promise of per capita distributions, many initially supported termination. In 1958, 44 California Indian groups were terminated, with tribal lands to be distributed to individual tribal members, and general services, such as improved sanitation, water, education, and roads, to be delivered by the federal government. However, in many communities, the promised improvements never materialized. Moreover, in many cases, individual tribal members did not receive a land allotment.
Perhaps worse than the unkept promises of material improvements was the loss of autonomy tribes suffered with termination’s shifting laws and responsibilities. Once a tribe was terminated, and the government-to-government relationship severed, tribes were regarded as a state’s responsibility. In many cases, states were unwilling or unable to provide services for their new constituents. Moreover, Public Law 280, which gave six states—including California—criminal jurisdiction in previously sovereign Indian lands, was largely opposed by both states and Indian communities. States were disinclined to enforce laws on a larger area without any additional funding, and Indian communities were loath to have outside law enforcement without prior consent.
1. According to the passage, termination in California was
a. opposed by state lawmakers in California
b. originally supported by some California Indians without a tribal land base
c. one method for California Indians to access jobs in law enforcement
d. challenged by the state under Public Law 280
e. a source of federal income that the state could spend on increased local law enforcement
2. Which of the following words best expresses the opinion of the author concerning the welfare of Indians after termination?
a. self-determination
b. failure
c. unique
d. worse
e. disinclined
3. Which of the following best describes the relationship of the final paragraph to the passage as a whole?
a. The main idea is reinforced by the inclusion of additional evidence.
b. The main idea is summarized and a transition to a new topic is given.
c. The main idea is restated in contrast to a contradictory opinion.
d. Exceptions to the main idea are critiqued and dismissed.
e. Local history is included to show that the main idea does not apply in every case.
4. Which of the following statements does the author imply about termination as it is discussed in the second paragraph?
a. Its intent to create law enforcement jobs on California tribal lands would reduce crime there.
b. Its plan to improve roadways and water systems was stymied by state interference.
c. Its failure to implement infrastructure provisions worsened Native California economies.
d. Its ultimate conditions were deemed satisfactory by the California Indians who did not live on tribal lands.
e. Its plan to only allocate lands to those Indians who did not live on tribal land violated state law.
25 Nov 2018, 21:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q1 B
"At the time, a significant number of Native Californians did not live on tribal land, so for the promise of per capita distributions, many initially supported termination"
Para 2
Q2 D
Read last line of para 1 and first line of para 3
Q3 A
Para 1 : States that the new policy was bad for the Tribes
Para 2 : Focuses on the Californian Tribe
Para 3 : Gives additional details regarding why the policy was bad for the Tribes
Q4
c. Its failure to implement infrastructure provisions worsened Native California economies.
d. Its ultimate conditions were deemed satisfactory by the California Indians who did not live on tribal lands.
Can anyone provide some insight on this question.
Are we eliminating D because those California Indians didn't care about the conditions as long as they got their share of the lands.
"At the time, a significant number of Native Californians did not live on tribal land, so for the promise of per capita distributions, many initially supported termination"
Para 2
Q2 D
Read last line of para 1 and first line of para 3
Q3 A
Para 1 : States that the new policy was bad for the Tribes
Para 2 : Focuses on the Californian Tribe
Para 3 : Gives additional details regarding why the policy was bad for the Tribes
Q4
c. Its failure to implement infrastructure provisions worsened Native California economies.
d. Its ultimate conditions were deemed satisfactory by the California Indians who did not live on tribal lands.
Can anyone provide some insight on this question.
Are we eliminating D because those California Indians didn't care about the conditions as long as they got their share of the lands.
tapasgupta
GMAT 1: 550 Q44 V23
Posts: 115
26 Nov 2018, 10:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
1. a. opposed by state lawmakers in California - they actually supported the termination as given in 2 nd para
b. originally supported by some California Indians without a tribal land base
- as given in 2 nd para
c. one method for California Indians to access jobs in law enforcement
- no where it is written about the same
d. challenged by the state under Public Law 280 - given in 3 rd para but we need to focus on 2nd para only
e. a source of federal income that the state could spend on increased local law enforcement - nowhere discussed
2. a. self-determination
b. failure
c. unique
d. worse- it is the actual situation of the Indian tribes
e. disinclined
3. a. The main idea is reinforced by the inclusion of additional evidence. - As a whole 3 rd para supported the whole passage
b. The main idea is summarized and a transition to a new topic is given.
c. The main idea is restated in contrast to a contradictory opinion.
d. Exceptions to the main idea are critiqued and dismissed.
e. Local history is included to show that the main idea does not apply in every case.
4. a. Its intent to create law enforcement jobs on California tribal lands would reduce crime there.
- nowhere it is discussed
b. Its plan to improve roadways and water systems was stymied by state interference. - given in 3 para - out of scope
c. Its failure to implement infrastructure provisions worsened Native California economies.
d. Its ultimate conditions were deemed satisfactory by the California Indians who did not live on tribal lands. - not supported
e. Its plan to only allocate lands to those Indians who did not live on tribal land violated state law. - not supported
Please advise if I am wrong.
b. originally supported by some California Indians without a tribal land base
- as given in 2 nd para
c. one method for California Indians to access jobs in law enforcement
- no where it is written about the same
d. challenged by the state under Public Law 280 - given in 3 rd para but we need to focus on 2nd para only
e. a source of federal income that the state could spend on increased local law enforcement - nowhere discussed
2. a. self-determination
b. failure
c. unique
d. worse- it is the actual situation of the Indian tribes
e. disinclined
3. a. The main idea is reinforced by the inclusion of additional evidence. - As a whole 3 rd para supported the whole passage
b. The main idea is summarized and a transition to a new topic is given.
c. The main idea is restated in contrast to a contradictory opinion.
d. Exceptions to the main idea are critiqued and dismissed.
e. Local history is included to show that the main idea does not apply in every case.
4. a. Its intent to create law enforcement jobs on California tribal lands would reduce crime there.
- nowhere it is discussed
b. Its plan to improve roadways and water systems was stymied by state interference. - given in 3 para - out of scope
c. Its failure to implement infrastructure provisions worsened Native California economies.
d. Its ultimate conditions were deemed satisfactory by the California Indians who did not live on tribal lands. - not supported
e. Its plan to only allocate lands to those Indians who did not live on tribal land violated state law. - not supported
Please advise if I am wrong.
