Reading Comprehension

PT118 · S2 · P4 · Q25 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.

25.

Which one of the following, if true, would lend the most credence to the author's statement in the second-to-last sentence of the passage?

Correct
Other Ontario courts had previously
Why this is right
We were looking for this, aboriginal property rights should allow you to sell the land or its resources; it's not just the right to use the land. This definitely supports that idea, because other courts feel that "use" of the land includes the right to sell the land or its resources. The fact that this answer references other Ontario courts makes it even better, because it shows that the provincial court's ruling isn't aligned with how other courts are interpreting the same legal text.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
The ruling created thousands of
Unrelated to Goal
This has nothing to do with making it seem like the provincial court's ruling was wrong, or that aboriginal rights should include sale of the land or its resources.
1% picked this
Previous court decisions in Ontario
Weakens
This seems to match the way the provincial court was thinking. The aboriginal group thought their rights included the right to sell the land, but the provincial court said, "No, it's only the right to use the land. That doesn't include selling it." So this answer is saying that previous court decisions have matched the provincial court's decision, in terms of distinguishing right to use from right to sell. If other courts are interpreting this law similarly to how the provincial court did, then that undermines the claim that the provincial court's interpretation of the law was excessively conservative.
10% picked this
The ruling prompted aboriginal groups
No Impact
This has nothing to do with making it seem like the provincial court's ruling was wrong, or that aboriginal rights should include sale of the land or its resources. We know that aboriginal groups are unhappy with the provincial court's ruling, so it's no surprise that the aboriginal groups would try to appeal it or to seek a satisfactory ruling elsewhere. But the fact that they are still trying to find a court that will side with them doesn't give us any reason to think that the provincial court was wrong. If an entrepreneur was told by one of the investors on Shark Tank that their invention didn't have mass market potential, it doesn't suggest that the investor's assessment was wrong if we say, "The disappointing rejection prompted the entrepreneur to pursue other potential investors".
2% picked this
Prior to the decision in
Weak Impact
We might try to say, "This supports the idea that the provincial court's ruling was wrong / too conservative, because it's saying that they had no experience ruling on these cases yet. Naturally, on their first case, they're going to be a little more conservative about how to interpret this law." That's not entirely crazy, but we can't assume a court is likely to make an excessively conservative ruling just because it's their first case dealing with a new law. If we thought the court was likely to make errors in judgment on their first case, they would be just as likely to be excessively liberal. When we compare the impact of (E) to (A), it's clearer with (A) that this provincial court is "out of step" with how other courts are interpreting the law, and it's clear that the provincial court's ruling is more limiting / more conservative / more stingy with what rights it grants.
4% 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