Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT133 S4 P1 Q3 Explanation

Tradition and the Law

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

TopicsLocate DetailLaw

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

Locate Detail

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
3.

According to the passage, the court’s decision in the 1991 case was based on which one

Answer choices

  1. Opposite, if anything8% picked this

    a narrow interpretation of the term

    The 1991 court thought that FWS's interpretation was too strained, too narrow. The 1991 court is trying to use a broader interpretation of traditional. The passage isn't really ever talking about how we interpret "long-standing".

  2. Bad Match: 2nd Half17% picked this

    a common-sense interpretation of the phrase "within

    This would work okay if it said, "a more common-sense interpretation of the term traditional". No one is ever fighting over how we interpret "within living memory".

  3. Opposite3% picked this

    strict adherence to the intent of

    The 1991 court basically overturned the FWS's ruling, so it wasn't in strict adherence to the FWS's interpretation of things. The "intent of FWS's regulations" is not even discussed in our Support Window in the last paragraph.

  4. Not in Support Window4% picked this

    a new interpretation of the Fur Seal Treaty

    The Fur Seal Treaty of 1910 is not discussed in our Support Window (the last paragraph), so we have no way to support that the 1991 court offered a new interpretation of this treaty.

  5. Correct68% picked this

    testimony establishing certain historical

    Why this is right

    Yes, this is our best match for After hearing testimony establishing that Alaska Native had made many uses of sea otters before the late 1700s, the court reconsidered what constituted traditional, under the statute. Once the 1991 court understood that sea otter pelts had been used by Alaska Natives since before the late 1700s, they were like, "Okay, that's got to qualify as 'traditional'. Let's reconsider what this statute means by 'traditional' to account for the fact that common sense tells us that something done before the late 1700s should qualify."

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

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