Reading Comprehension

PT133 · S4 · P1 · Q5 Tradition and the Law

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

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

In Alaska, tradition is a powerful legal concept, appearing in a wide variety of legal contexts relating to natural-resource and public-lands activities.

Topic

The meaning and legal interpretation of “tradition” in Alaska’s natural-resource and public-lands law, especially as it relates to indigenous rights.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

The failure to clearly define “tradition” in law has led to inconsistent and problematic legal outcomes, as shown in sea otter pelt court cases, with courts eventually recognizing that restricting “tradition” to recent memory is overly narrow and unreasonable. Most Valuable Sentence: The court stated,

P1: The Problem—Vague Legal Definition of “Tradition”

The passage starts by explaining that “tradition” is a big deal in Alaskan law, offering certain rights, but it’s almost never plainly defined. Because everyone just assumes its meaning is obvious, this leads to confusing and inconsistent legal decisions.

P2: How “Tradition” Is Usually Interpreted

Here, the author notes that “tradition” is typically linked to practices that are longstanding, regular, and continuous, but warns that two recent cases about sea otter pelts show how tricky this definition can be.

P3: Sea Otter Pelts—Legal Restrictions and Narrow Rules

This paragraph gives the background: hunting sea otters was banned, but Alaska Natives could use them for “traditional” handicrafts. Government rules said that only items made before 1972 counted as “traditional,” which meant things made from sea otter pelts didn’t qualify because no one had done that “within living memory.”

Which one of the following is most strongly suggested by the passage?

Correct
Between 1910 and 1972, Alaska
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% picked this
Traditional items made from sea
Out of Scope: specific items
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.
12% picked this
In the late 1700s, Russian
Out of Scope: Russian hunters
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% picked this
By 1972, the sea otter
Unsupported Comparison
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% picked this
Prior to the late 1700s,
Too Strong: most often
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% picked this

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