Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT133 S4 P1 Q2 Explanation

Tradition and the Law

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsNon-Author OpinionLaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

In Alaska, tradition is a powerful legal concept, appearing in a wide variety of legal contexts relating to natural-resource and public-lands activities. Both state and federal laws in the United States assign privileges and exemptions to individuals engaged in “traditional” activities using otherwise off-limits land and resources. But in spite of its “tradition” clearly in written law has given rise to problematic and inconsistent legal results.

One of the most prevalent ideas associated with the term “tradition” in the law is that tradition is based on long-standing practice, where “long-standing” refers not only to the passage of time but also to the continuity and regularity of a practice. But two recent court cases involving indigenous can arise in the application of this sense of “traditional.”

The hunting of sea otters was initially prohibited by the Fur Seal Treaty of 1910. The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 continued the prohibition, but it also included an Alaska Native exemption, which allowed takings of protected animals for use in creating authentic native articles by means of “traditional native produced from sea otter pelts, because Alaska Natives had not produced such handicrafts “within living memory.”

In 1986, FWS agents seized articles of clothing made from sea otter pelts from Marina Katelnikoff, an Aleut. She sued, but the district court upheld the FWS regulations. Then in 1991 Katelnikoff joined a similar suit brought by Boyd Dickinson, a Tlingit from whom articles of clothing made from sea otter pelts those traditions that were exercised during a comparatively short period in history could qualify as ‘traditional.’”

What this question is testing

Non-Author Opinion

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
2.

The court in the 1991 case referred to the FWS’s interpretation of the term “traditional” as “strained” (last paragraph) because, in the

Answer choices

  1. Not in the Support Window20% picked this

    ignored the ways in which Alaska Natives have historically understood the

    Nothing in the final three sentences of the passage involves the 1991 court saying that the FWS neglected to consider that Alaska Natives historical definition of "traditional".

  2. Not in the Support Window1% picked this

    was not consonant with any dictionary definition

    Nothing in the final three sentences of the passage involves the 1991 court saying that the FWS's definition of "traditional" doesn't resemble any dictionary definition of that word.

  3. Correct62% picked this

    was inconsistent with what the term "traditional" is normally understood

    Why this is right

    The final sentence of the passage has the 1991 court saying that the FWS's definition of "traditional" defies common sense. "It defies common sense to define traditional that way" = "it is inconsistent with how people commonly understand the concept of traditional"."

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

  4. Word Jumble13% picked this

    led the FWS to use the word "traditional" to describe a practice that should not have

    This is very close to saying the right thing, but a couple details are flipped from how they should be. The 1991 court would say that FWS's strained interpretation of traditional "led the FWS to refuse to use the word traditional to describe a practice (the sea otter pelts) that should have been described as such."

  5. Not in the Support Window4% picked this

    failed to specify which handicrafts qualified to be designated

    Nothing in the final three sentences of the passage involves the 1991 court saying that the FWS neglected to name which handicrafts should be designated as "traditional".

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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