Reading Comprehension

PT106 · S4 · P1 · Q5 Native American Land Claims

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

Some Native American tribes have had difficulty establishing their land claims because the United States government did not recognize their status as tribes; therefore during the 1970's some Native Americans attempted to obtain such recognition through the medium of U.S. courts.

Topic

Native American land claims and the challenges posed by cultural differences in legal discourse.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

Native American tribes, such as the Mashpee Wampanoag, have faced significant obstacles in asserting land rights through U.S. courts because of conflicting cultural definitions and expectations, particularly the courts’ preference for written documentation over oral testimony; however, courts are beginning to recognize the need to accommodate such cultural differences for fairer legal outcomes. The Most Valuable Sentence: The final sentence of the passage sums up the key idea:

P1: Intro to the Problem of Legal Recognition across Cultures

Some Native American tribes haven't had their land claims recognized by the U.S. government because their tribal status wasn't acknowledged. In the 1970s, Native Americans tried to gain recognition via the U.S. court system, but their arguments had to be framed in legal terms that didn't always match up with their own cultural perspectives.

P2: The Mashpee Wampanoag Case—Specific Example of the Problem

A notable example involved the Mashpee Wampanoag, whose legal case hinged on whether they qualified as a "tribe" as defined by previous court rulings. When non-Mashpee residents gained control of the town, Mashpee lands were sold off, leading to the Mashpee suing under a law protecting tribal land. The town countered by arguing the Mashpee didn’t meet the legal definition of a tribe, so the court required the Mashpee to prove they were a self-governing group with a defined territory.

P3: Cultural Clash and Its Consequences / Hints of Improvement

The town insisted the Mashpee show written proof of self-government and land ownership, while the Mashpee relied on oral testimony, in line with their traditions. The legal system dismissed the oral evidence, leading to the Mashpee’s defeat in court. However, there have been recent improvements: courts are beginning to realize that rigidly sticking to their own discourse can block fair decisions, and they are starting to better accommodate cultural differences.

5.

The passage is primarily concerned with

  1. evaluating various approaches to solving

    Out of Scope: evaluating multiple solutions

    This is attractive, if we used a Problem / Solution framework. However the author never presented multiple solutions. The only solution we had was "try to obtain tribal recognition through the US courts". And the author was mainly neutral. The verb "evaluating" means that our author offered positive or negative opinions about several different solutions to a problem.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    illuminating a general problem by

    Why this is right

    You dirty dog, (B). Did you just blend together our two Frameworks? This answer has a nod to Problem/Solution and Theme/Example. The final sentence of the 1st paragraph is what we would consider the thesis / most valuable sentence, and it's saying "This process brought to light", which is the same as "illuminates" (literally! they're both about light!) The problem is what happens when two cultures try to interact, but their systems of discourse are at variance, so they have different perceptions / definitions of certain concepts (such as "tribe" or "self-governing").

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

    89% picked this

  3. reconciling the differences in how

    Out of Scope: reconciling

    This makes it sound like the author had a more active role, rather than just descriptively telling us a story. This answer feels more like a Present Debate sort of purpose: to trace out two sides and then offer their own synthesis at the end. We could say that the US govt and the Mashpee/other Native American people were two opposing sides. By the author never reconciles their differences. She tells the story of a specific group of Mashpee trying to establish in the court system that they are a tribe, and highlights differences between how the Mashpee saw certain things and how the US govt did. But highlighting is not reconciling (which is more like offering your own take about how both sides could be correct). And there weren't two approaches to a problem. The problem for tribes is that the govt didn't recognize their tribal status. The tribes are trying to solve that problem, but the US govt doesn't have its own approach to solving that "problem". The US govt doesn't think the Mashpee are a tribe.

    6% picked this

  4. critiquing an earlier solution to

    Too Opinionated: critiquing

    This was a mainly neutral author, so verbs like "evaluating / reconciling / critiquing" should sound too opinionated. There isn't an Old vs. New solution. The same solution (trying to establish tribal status via the courts) goes from not working to working.

    2% picked this

  5. reinterpreting an earlier analysis and

    Too Opinionated

    Too Opinionated: reinterpreting / proposing Out of Scope: new solution This was a mainly neutral author, so both of these verbs are way too active and personal. The US court system seems to reinterpret an earlier analysis (Mashpee are not a tribe) at the very end of the passage. But nobody proposes a new solution to the problem. The solution to the problem of not being recognized as a tribe is to fight for that status in the courts. There isn't any alternative solution discussed.

    2% 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