Canadian Aboriginal Rights

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: directly contravened28% picked this

   The court’s ruling directly contravened the language of the constitutional reforms protecting aboriginal land ownership rights in

   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%
2. B

   Contradicted: not authorized10% picked this

   The Supreme Court remains the best hope for the recognition of full aboriginal property rights because provincial courts are not authorized to rule

   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.

   10%
3. C

   Trap8% picked this

   If there had been clear documentary evidence that the group had occupied the land before the establishment of British sovereignty, the court would

   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%
4. D

   Word Trap3% picked this

   The unsatisfactory ruling in the case was the result of pressure from conservative politicians and

   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%
5. E

   Correct50% picked this

   The court correctly understood the intent of the constitutional reforms, but it failed to apply them correctly because it misconstrued

   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.

   50%