Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT133 S4 P1 Q4 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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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
4.

The passage most strongly suggests that the court in the 1986 case believed that “traditional” should be defined

Answer choices

  1. Opposite2% picked this

    reflects a compromise between the competing concerns surrounding the issue

    This answer sounds more like the 2nd definition of "traditional", which recognized the balance between natives' long-standing tradition of making sea otter pelts with the 62 year pause on that practice, imposed by the 1910 Fur Seal Treaty.

  2. Correct80% picked this

    emphasizes the continuity and regularity of practices to which the term

    Why this is right

    This is the "within living memory" answer, but they've used code language to swap out one meaning for a related one. The FWS's argument is, "Hey, natives, if you haven't been making sea otter pelts any time in living memory, like the last 60 years, then we can't call this a tradition. A tradition is a practice that is continuously and regularly done. If there's a 60 year gap between otter pelts being made, it doesn't seem like otter pelts are really a tradition." The 2nd paragraph is where this language of "continuity and regularity" comes from. It ends by saying, "two recent court cases (the 1986 case being one of them) illustrate the problems that can arise in the application of this sense of 'traditional'."

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

  3. Opposite3% picked this

    reflects the term's usage in everyday

    The final sentence of the passage is making it seem like the 2nd definition of traditional, the one used in the 1991 case, is the one that more accords with common sense / everyday usage.

  4. Bad Match7% picked this

    encourages the term's application to recently developed, as well as

    Since the 1986 decision was the more conservative one, this answer seems way too tolerant and forgiving. "Everything's traditional! Age-old stuff, sure. But also recently developed stuff is also traditional!" It doesn't make sense that anyone would define recently developed stuff as "traditional". And if this were the 1986 court's standard, then why did they deny Marina the notion that her sea otter pelts were traditional? This sounds like whether it's old or new, it's traditional.

  5. Opposite8% picked this

    reflects the concerns of the people engaging in what they consider to

    Marina was the person engaged in making sea otter pelts and she definitely considered herself to be engaged in a traditional activity. Nonetheless, the court disagreed and said, "No, that's not traditional". So it doesn't look like the 1986 court's use of traditional reflected the concerns of Marina.

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