Reading Comprehension

PT101 · S4 · P2 · Q9 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.

The primary purpose of the passage is to provide an answer to which one of the following questions?

How should the legal protection
Out of Scope: enhanced
The passage never makes any suggestions about how to change the legal protection of Native American burial grounds. This sort of question would fit a Problem / Solution passage well, but this was not that kind of passage.
1% picked this
What characteristics of Native American
Too Narrow
This question would potentially cover the discussion of when Native Americans are more/less likely to achieve standing in cases involving burial grounds. But this question wouldn't have anything do with paragraph 2 or 3. Nothing in paragraph 2 or 3 lists any characteristic of a Native American burial ground.
8% picked this
Correct
In what ways does the
Why this is right
This relates to the discussion of what it takes for Native Americans to achieve standing, from the 1st paragraph. We can say, for example, that the law doesn't really protect the rights of Native American in regards to the contents of ancestral graves in cases of ancient graves that aren't clearly associated with any tribe. And the 2nd and 3rd paragraph provide big answers to this question. Property Law and the distinction between communal / private property are the ways in which the law helps protect the rights of Native Americans regarding the contents of ancient graves.
Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
80% picked this
Why are the courts concerned
Out of Scope: courts' concern
We actually don't ever hear in the passage a reason why courts are concerned with protecting Native American burial grounds from desecration. Not only is the court's motivation totally out of scope, it's also not even the central topic to be focusing on the desecration of the burial grounds. Yes, the burial grounds are often desecrated when a grave-robber digs up an ancient grave, but the passage is more about the legal efforts of Native Americans to reclaim the property that was taken from the ancestral grave. And it's about stopping people from desecrating the spirit of the dead person, not the burial grounds themselves.
1% picked this
By what means can Native
Out of Scope: establish land rights
The passage doesn't ever talk about how Native Americans can establish that "THEY own this land that their ancestors are buried on!" This isn't a passage about Native Americans suing so that they can own the land on which their ancestors are buried. It's primarily a passage about Native Americans suing so that they can reclaim the items taken from ancestral graves.
10% 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