Reading Comprehension

PT118 · S2 · P4 · Q26 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

Start practicing free

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.

26.

Based on the information in the passage, the author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the 1984 case in Ontario?

  1. The court’s ruling directly contravened

    Too Strong: directly contravened

    The author knows that the language in the constitution is necessarily vague, so courts have wide latitude in how they interpret these new rights. Our author is saying this seems like a very conservative interpretation of the rights granted, but that's miles away from saying it directly contravenes (explicitly contradicts) the language of the constitution.

    28% picked this

  2. The Supreme Court remains the

    Contradicted: not authorized

    The author believes the provincial courts are authorized. The provincial court made a ruling. Clearly they're authorized to rule. The author just disagreed with how limited the rights were that the provincial court granted.

    9% picked this

  3. If there had been clear

    Trap

    Out of Support Window Too Strong: Hypothetical "probably" Unsupported Relationship This is bringing in ideas from the 2nd paragraph, as a way of sounding 'familiar' while still being wrong. The Ontario case is only commented on in the 3rd paragraph. We have a couple explicit sentiments from the author there, so this question stem is definitely going to connect back to those sentiments. This answer is just trying to confuse us by stringing together an unsupported idea by using familiar terms from elsewhere in the passage (a.k.a. Word Salad).

    8% picked this

  4. The unsatisfactory ruling in the

    Word Trap

    Word Trap: conservative Out of Scope: conservative politicians This is trying to appeal to people by using conservative, since the author called the Ontario case 'excessively conservative'. This answer is equivocating between a conservative interpretation, which can be done by a judge of any political ideology, and conservative (i.e. right-wing) politicians and interest groups.

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    The court correctly understood the

    Why this is right

    The first half of this answer is supported by the first half of the last paragraph. The author introduces the Ontario case as one in which "aboriginal peoples are successful in convincing the courts that specific rights should be recognized". Aboriginal ownership of specific lands was fully established. The court granted the aboriginal people property rights, which was part of the intent of the constitutional reforms. But the court "ruled that [existing law] had previously recognized only the right to use the land". The author gets mad that the court grants only the right to use the land. He says he hopes the Supreme Court "will insist upon a satisfactory application of the constitutional reforms". This implies that the author considers the Ontario case to have been an unsatisfactory application of the constitutional reforms to existing law.

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

    52% 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