Canadian Aboriginal Rights

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong4% picked this

   The overly conservative rulings of Canada’s provincial courts have been a barrier to constitutional reforms intended

   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%
2. B

   Too Strong: halted efforts Contradicted5% picked this

   The overwhelming burden placed on provincial courts of interpreting constitutional language in Canada has halted efforts by aboriginal peoples to

   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%
3. C

   Correct85% picked this

   Constitutional language aimed at protecting aboriginal rights in Canada has so far left the protection of these rights uncertain due to the

   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%
4. D

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   Constitutional reforms meant to protect aboriginal rights in Canada have in fact been used by some provincial courts

   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%
5. E

   Too Narrow3% picked this

   Efforts by aboriginal rights advocates to uphold constitutional reforms in Canada may be more successful if heard by the Supreme Court rather

   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%