Reading Comprehension

PT101 · S4 · P2 · Q14 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.

14.

Which one of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

Prior to an appellate court’s
Wrong Emphasis Too Strong
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% picked this
Property law offers the most
Wrong Emphasis Too Strong: most promising
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% picked this
The older the grave, the
Wrong Emphasis Too Strong
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% picked this
Correct
In cases in which Native
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% picked this
Native Americans are unlikely to
Wrong Tone
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% 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