Reading Comprehension

PT118 · S2 · P4 · Q20 Canadian Aboriginal Rights

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

The following passage was written in the late 1980s.

Topic

The ongoing challenges aboriginal peoples face in Canada when seeking legal recognition and enforcement of their constitutional rights, especially regarding land and traditional customs.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

Even though Canada extended constitutional protection to aboriginal rights in 1982, the implementation and recognition of these rights remain inconsistent and problematic due to vague legal language, interpretation issues in provincial courts, and difficulties tied to proving and defining aboriginal customs and land ownership. The sentence appears late in the first paragraph and best summarizes the main frustration.

P1: Constitutional Reform and Its Limits

Constitutional protection for aboriginal rights was added in 1982 to help secure these rights for Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples. However, this move shifted the burden of interpreting vague constitutional language to provincial courts, leading to inconsistent application and weak protection of aboriginal rights despite their ongoing advocacy.

P2: Difficulties Proving Customary Rights

The constitution says aboriginal peoples have rights to land, self-government, and legal protection of customs, but applying these in real life is hard. Courts want proof that a custom is "traditional," meaning it existed before British rule. This is tough because aboriginal societies often rely on oral history, making it hard to provide the kind of written evidence the courts want.

P3: Interpreting "Ownership" and Restrictive Court Decisions

Even when aboriginal groups prove their land claims, courts often interpret their rights very narrowly. For example, in a 1984 Ontario case, judges decided owning land did not mean full ownership (like selling it), but just the right to use it for survival. The author criticizes the provincial court for being too conservative and suggests real progress may only come if these issues reach Canada's Supreme Court, which might enforce constitutional reforms more robustly.

20.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

The overly conservative rulings of
Too Strong
Too Strong: courts have been a barrier There is only one provincial court ruling discussed in the final paragraph where the author says that they were overly conservative. This answer sounds like it's casting a lot of blame. The author's thesis at the end of the 1st paragraph sounds more sympathetic to the provincial courts. She realizes that the constitutional rights had to be written in very general language, so now the courts have to refine how we should interpret that language, and the provincial (lower) courts are the first ones to get a crack at it. "An enormous burden has been placed on them" ? they are a barrier to the constitutional reforms
4% picked this
The overwhelming burden placed on
Too Strong: halted efforts Contradicted
The passage never implies that aboriginal peoples have stopped their efforts to gain full ownership of land. In fact, the final sentence or two insinuates that aboriginal peoples in one case will appeal the provincial ruling and continue their effort to gain full ownership. And the final sentence of the 1st paragraph speaks to "continued efforts".
5% picked this
Correct
Constitutional language aimed at protecting
Why this is right
This sounds like a blameless statement of the Problem. The final two sentences of the 1st paragraph are the best synopsis of the problem, and they speak to the "enormous burden of interpreting the constitutional language into specific rulings". And they speak to "inconsistent recognition and establishment of aboriginal rights" (this matches "protection of these rights is so far uncertain").
Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
85% picked this
Constitutional reforms meant to protect
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: used to limit rights The point of the passage is that we have these new constitutional rights for aboriginal peoples, but courts are currently struggling through figuring out exactly what those rights are. In some cases, the courts are being overly conservative or culturally insensitive with how they're interpreting those rights. But at no point does the passage accuse provincial courts of using these constitution reforms to limit the rights of aboriginals. Their overly conservative interpretations mean that the aboriginals' rights are more limited than if the court had ruled more liberally, but saying that "courts are using reforms to limit rights" has a pernicious sound, like the court wants to limit the rights of aboriginal peoples and is being opportunistic with this new constitutional language. In either case, this answer would be a Premise, not a Conclusion. The Conclusion is that "we gave aboriginal people constitutional rights, but we're currently struggling through the phase where provincial courts have to interpret the language of those rights". A premise for that conclusion would be this answer, "After all .. some provincial court rulings are limiting the rights of aboriginals."
3% picked this
Efforts by aboriginal rights advocates
Too Narrow
This is tempting because the Solution in a Problem / Solution passage is usually the main event, and the only "Solution" discussed in this paragraph would be the final sentence, in which the author suggests that "hopefully the Supreme Court will have a better interpretation of the constitutional language". But this is just a narrow moment, not the author wanting us to walk away from this passage thinking, "The way to solve the problem of the new constitutional language is to be heard by the Supreme Court". The author was only talking about one group, one specific case. The conversation in the 1st paragraph frames the overall discussion as a difficult phase the provincial courts are currently working through (not anyone's fault). The author hasn't shown total pessimism in the provincial courts' ability to do this. And if all these cases testing the language of the new constitutional reforms were to go to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court would face the same enormous burden. The Supreme Court probably couldn't even handle that volume of cases, so the author is never suggesting "Supreme Court" as the Solution to the Problem the passage is discussing. Thus, we shouldn't be platforming the Supreme Court in the main point answer. It should just be a summary of our current problematic situation.
3% 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