Reading Comprehension

PT101 · S4 · P2 · Q11 Native American Burials

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Many Native Americans view the archaeological excavation and museum display of ancestral skeletal remains and items buried with them as a spiritual desecration.

Topic

Legal challenges and considerations regarding Native American claims to ancestral graves and artifacts excavated by archaeologists and displayed in museums.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

While Native Americans face legal challenges in preventing the excavation and display of ancestral graves—especially when the graves are ancient—certain property laws and court rulings, like Charrier v. Bell, may offer support for their claims to ancestral artifacts and provide grounds for repatriation if standing can be established. (*The "Most Valuable Sentences" appear in the first paragraph: *)

P1: Legal Barriers to Native American Claims

Many Native Americans are deeply opposed to the excavation and display of their ancestors’ remains, but they face big legal hurdles in challenging these actions. Typically, courts grant "standing" only if the community is closely connected to the grave by time or geography. For very old, disconnected graves, it's much tougher to make a case—courts would have to stretch the usual legal interpretations. But if they can get standing, there are legal pathways for claims.

P2: Property Law as a Pathway

If Native Americans achieve standing, property law can help them reclaim grave goods. A key court case (Charrier v. Bell) clarified that objects buried with the dead aren’t “abandoned property,” so archaeologists can’t claim them for themselves. The court essentially said burial goods are meant to stay within the community, not become free for taking, suggesting such artifacts should go back to tribal representatives if they have standing.

P3: Individual vs. Communal Property Rights

The law treats communal tribal property differently from individual property. Just because a museum bought an artifact in good faith from an individual Native American, it doesn’t mean they have true legal title to it if it belonged to the tribe as a whole. Museums can’t assume they own communal artifacts just because they went through a legitimate sale with one person.

11.

According to the passage, which one of the following is true of cases involving ancient graves?

  1. Once a plaintiff’s standing has

    Unknown Comparison

    Unknown Comparison: harder to resolve Opposite, if anything We're looking for an answer that says something like, "it's hard for a plaintiff to establish standing". This is going past that and saying, "Yeah, but in the rare cases where they do get standing ..." We don't know anything about what happens in the rare cases where Native Americans do get standing, other than what the thesis tells us: in cases where standing can be achieved, common law may provide a basis for some Native American claims We don't have any text that supports the claim that ancient grave cases are harder to resolve than are cases with more recent graves. (If anything, we might think that they're easier to resolve because the Native American plaintiff probably doesn't have as strong a case).

    14% picked this

  2. The distinction between individual and

    Out of Window: individual vs. communal

    There's nothing in our Support Window relating to individual vs. communal (that's 3rd paragraph). And the only usually we know about cases involving ancient graves is that "Usually, Native Americans aren't successful in establishing standing".

    23% picked this

  3. Even when a plaintiff’s standing

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: cannot be used Opposite, if anything We're looking for an answer that says something like, "it's hard for a plaintiff to establish standing". This is going past that and saying, "Yeah, but in the rare cases where they do get standing ..." We don't know anything about what happens in the rare cases where Native Americans do get standing, other than what the thesis tells us: in cases where standing can be achieved, common law may provide a basis for some Native American claims So the text we do have would actually contradict this answer. The 2nd paragraph explains that property law can be useful (in cases where standing has been achieved).

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    In most such cases, common

    Why this is right

    We're looking for an answer that says something like, "it's hard for a plaintiff to establish standing". This answer provides the closest match for that. We were told that, "in cases in which the grave is ancient, Native Americans are less likely to be successful [in establishing standing", and we were told that, "in most cases involving ancient graves, granting Native Americans standing would represent a significant expansion of common law". In other words, judges aren't going to be keen to do it. You'd have to be a very bold, activist judge to grant Native Americans standing in most cases involving ancient graves. Common law, as normally interpreted, would not recognize their standing.

    Skill tested: Locate Detail · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    53% picked this

  5. Common law is rarely used

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: rarely used Opposite, if anything We're looking for an answer that says something like, "it's hard for a plaintiff to establish standing". This is going past that and saying, "Yeah, but in the rare cases where they do get standing ..." We don't know anything about what happens in the rare cases where Native Americans do get standing, other than what the thesis tells us: in cases where standing can be achieved, common law may provide a basis for some Native American claims That thesis is practically contradicting this answer. When they can get standing, common law may provide a basis for their claims.

    6% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free