Native American Burials

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Emphasis Too Strong1% picked this

   Prior to an appellate court’s ruling in Charrier vs. Bell, Native Americans had no legal grounds for demanding the return of

   Wrong Emphasis Too Strong: no legal grounds We definitely wouldn't be wanting or expecting to see Charrier vs. Bell in our main point answer, since that was just one example brought up in the 2nd paragraph. And it's far too strong to say that NA's had no legal grounds for going after buried artifacts prior to this case.

   1%
2. B

   Wrong Emphasis Too Strong: most promising10% picked this

   Property law offers the most promising remedies to Native Americans seeking to recover communally owned artifacts that were sold

   Property law was just one example of how common law gives NA's a basis in disinterment cases, brought up in the 2nd paragraph. It's a supporting idea, not the main idea. And the author never singled it out as the #1 most promising remedy.

   10%
3. C

   Wrong Emphasis Too Strong3% picked this

   The older the grave, the more difficult it is for Native Americans to establish standing in cases concerning the disposition

   Wrong Emphasis Too Strong: the more X, the more Y There is some support for this claim in the 3rd-to-last sentence of the 1st paragraph: in cases where the grave is ancient and located where NA's have not recently lived, they are less likely to be successful. This is way too narrow, since this claim has zero to do with paragraphs 2 and 3, which are dealing with situations in which NA's do establish standing. But it's also too strong an idea. We know that "if a grave is ancient, then it's less likely that NA's will achieve standing". However that is on/off, yes/no logic: Ancient graves are less likely than non-ancient graves to allows NA's to establish standing. We can't turn yes/no logic into these Volume Knob relationships. We don't know that a grave that is 600 years old is more difficult than one that is 599 years old. They might be equally difficult. Also, there are other factors besides age of the grave (is it in a location where NA's have recently lived) that also affect whether NA's can establish standing. So we can't reduce this relationship to a "the more x, the more y" type formulation. But again, that strength of language discussion is just here for your information. We should summarily dismiss this upon reading it because of how narrow the idea is / how it has nothing to do with 2/3 of the passage.

   3%
4. D

   Correct77% picked this

   In cases in which Native Americans can establish standing, common law can be useful in protecting ancestral remains and

   Why this is right

   Wow, that's a great match for the final sentence of the 1st paragraph (I miss older LSATs). Since this sentence deals with standing, it wraps its arms around the discussion in the 1st paragraph. And since this sentence deals with common law providing a basis for NA's claims to ancestral remains, it wraps its arms around the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, both of which present ways in which common law can help NA's claims to ancestral remains.

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

   77%
5. E

   Wrong Tone9% picked this

   Native Americans are unlikely to make significant progress in the recovery of cultural property until common law is significantly expanded to provide them with

   This answer sounds very pessimistic, accusatory, and concerned. NA's are unlikely to make real progress until common law is significantly expanded. Can we point to any lines where the author sounds so pessimistic or unhappy? No. The second sentence of the passage sounds somewhat optimistic: a number of legal remedies may be available to NA communities, if they can establish standing in such cases. The author towards the end of the 1st paragraph is saying "for the courts to grant standing to ancient graves where NA's haven't lived for a long time, that would be a big expansion of common law". Is the author saying there that we should significantly expand common law? No, not necessarily. She might agree that it defies the normal logic of common law to give NA's standing in such cases. She immediately pivots into an optimistic thesis sentence that makes it sound like, "If you can establish standing (i.e. convince the court that you have a legal right to sue in this matter), then common law's got your back!"

   9%