Reading Comprehension

PT101 · S4 · P2 · Q12 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.

12.

The passage suggests that in making the ruling in Charrier v. Bell the Court is most likely to have considered the answer to which one of the following questions?

Are the descendants of the
No Connection to Support Window
We can't connect this answer choice to any of the three things we were told about the court: - buried property isn't abandoned - abandonment doctrine doesn't apply - treating it as such would lead to immediate grave robbing (it wouldn't technically be robbing!)
5% picked this
Correct
What was the reason for
Why this is right
The passage says The court ruled that the practice of burying items with the body of the deceased "is not intended as a means of relinquishing ownership to a stranger". The court was asking itself, "What is the intent of burying items with the body of the deceased?"
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
42% picked this
How long after interment had
No Connection to Support Window
We can almost connect this answer choice to the third detail we hear about the court: - treating the buried objects as abandoned would lead to immediate grave robbing But there the court was asking itself "what would happen if we ruled that buried objects were intended as relinquishing ownership to strangers"? This answer choice is using the past tense, as though the court was asking about a specific timeline for when buried objects were claimed by a stranger in a particular case. We never hear anything like that.
4% picked this
Did the descendants of the
No Connection to Support Window
We can't connect this answer choice to any of the three things we were told about the court: - buried property isn't abandoned - abandonment doctrine doesn't apply - treating it as such would lead to immediate grave robbing This answer choice is just trying to take advantage of word "neighborhood", which appears in the 3rd and final sentence of our Support Window.
6% picked this
Could the property on which
Out of Scope: abandoned land
The court was definitely asking itself, Could the property/objects being buried with the deceased be legally considered to be abandoned property? But this answer choice is talking about "the property on which buried objects were found". Let's say I found your great-grandma's pearl necklace, which was buried with her. I found it in the graveyard. This court case was about whether that necklace could be considered abandoned property. This answer is about whether that graveyard could be considered abandoned property. The graveyard is "the property on which the buried object (pearl necklace) was found".
43% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill

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