Reading Comprehension

PT133 · S4 · P1 · Q6 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.”

The author's reference to the Fur Seal Treaty (first sentence of the third paragraph) primarily serves to

establish the earliest point in
Too Strong
Too Strong: brink of extinction Too Strong: earliest point in time Saying "initially" does indicate the earliest point in time, but this first sentence of the 3rd paragraph would only be saying, "the earliest point in time for the prohibition of hunting sea otters was 1910". Just because we're prohibiting hunting sea otters in 1910 doesn't mean we consider them on the brink of extinction. And even if we thought the prohibition did signal that we considered fur seals to be on the brink of extinction, the treaty isn't the first time we considered the danger. We have considered ourselves on the brink of climate crisis for a decade or two now. If we finally pass big climate legislation in 2021, that will not mark "the earliest point in time at which we thought something drastic should be done to address climate change". We've had the thought for decades; this would only mark the earliest point in time at which we enacted major legislation.
1% picked this
indicate that several animals in
Wrong Purpose
The author doesn't have any local agenda of trying to convince us that animals beyond otters were covered by exemptions. The purpose of discussing Fur Seal Treaty is framed by the agenda of ... two recent court cases involving sea otter pelts illustrate the problems that can arise with applying this sense of "traditional".
2% picked this
demonstrate that there is a
Wrong Purpose
Just like (B), this answer says something that's potentially true, but how does it connect to the author's Local Purpose? Yes, this legislation covered more than just sea otters, but what sentence can we point to that shows the author cares about convincing us of that? Yes, this treaty (can we call a treaty a legal precedent?) is probably well-known, at least within Alaskan legal circles or environmental historians, but what sentence can we point to that shows the author cares about convincing us of that? The purpose of discussing Fur Seal Treaty is framed by the agenda of ... two recent court cases involving sea otter pelts illustrate the problems that can arise with applying this sense of "traditional". It doesn't seem like the author has any motivation to prove to us that there's a well-known legal precedent for prohibiting hunting certain animals.
25% picked this
suggest that the sea otter
Unsupported Relationship
Russian seal hunters are nowhere near this line reference and don't appear until midway through the following paragraph. This style of trap answer I call "Word Salad", meaning that the test writer is just grabbing familiar nouns or phrases from elsewhere in the passage and tossing them together.
0% picked this
Correct
help explain the evolution of
Why this is right
The purpose of discussing Fur Seal Treaty is framed by the agenda of ... two recent court cases involving sea otter pelts illustrate the problems that can arise with applying this sense of "traditional". So we instantly like this answer because it's reinforcing the Local Purpose of talking about "traditional" (it's connecting backwards to the claim before it). We can also like the phrase "evolution of legal rights", because that connects forward to the rest of the paragraph (initially, continued, subsequently). The Fur Seal Treaty outlawed the hunting of sea otters, denying Alaska Natives the legal right to make one of their traditional handicrafts, the sea otter pelt. This backstory is crucial for understanding the "two recent court cases that show the problems in applying a definition of 'traditional'."
Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
71% 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