Tradition and the Law

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

TopicsInferenceLaw

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

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

Inference

Your task

Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.

Common trap

Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.

Winning move

Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.

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

The question

Which one of the following is most strongly suggested by

Answer choices

Correct75% picked this
Between 1910 and 1972, Alaska Natives were prohibited from hunting
Why this is right
The beginning of the 2nd paragraph tells us that "the hunting of sea otters was initially prohibited by the Fur Seal Treaty of 1910. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 continued the prohibition, but it also included an Alaska Native exemption." The idea that the MMPA continued the prohibition but included the Alaska Native exemption conveys that there was no such Alaska Native exemption in the Fur Seal Treaty of 1910. So the 1910 Fur Seal Treaty prohibited Alaska Natives from hunting sea otters, and then the 1972 MMPA allowed them to hunt or "take" protected animals for use in creating native handicrafts.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
75%
Out of Scope: specific items13% picked this
Traditional items made from sea otter pelts were specifically mentioned in the Alaska Native exemption
From that 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph, we know that the MMPA "allowed takings of protected animals for use in creating authentic native articles by means of traditional native handicrafts." But are there any specific traditional items made from sea otter pelts that are mentioned? We don't know.
13%
Out of Scope: Russian hunters8% picked this
In the late 1700s, Russian hunters pressured the Russian government to bar Alaska Natives from
In the 3rd paragraph we hear that "Alaska Natives had made many uses of sea otters before the occupation of the territory by Russia in the late 1700s". Does that mean that when the Russians arrived the Alaska Natives stopped hunting sea otters? No. And even if the Natives did stop hunting sea otters at that point, does that mean that it's because hunters pressured the Russian government to bar them from doing so? No. We have no support for this specific accusation.
8%
Unsupported Comparison1% picked this
By 1972, the sea otter population in Alaska had returned to the levels at which it had been
The passage never makes any comparison between 1972 and late 1700s, in terms of whether the sea otter population was comparable. We are never even told the motivation for the 1910 prohibition on sea otters -- was it because the sea otter population in Alaska had gotten too low? We have no idea. When an exemption was added in 1972 to let Alaska Natives hunt sea otters again, was that because sea otters had returned to late-1700s levels? We have no idea.
1%
Too Strong: most often3% picked this
Prior to the late 1700s, sea otters were the marine animal most often hunted
We know that Alaska Natives did hunt sea otters prior to the late 1700s. That's all we know. We can't sign off on any extreme claim that it was the marine animal most often hunted by them.
3%

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