Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT133 S4 P1 Q6 Explanation

Tradition and the Law

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

TopicsLocal PurposeLaw

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

Local Purpose

Your task

Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.

Common trap

Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.

Winning move

Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.

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

The question
6.

The author’s reference to the Fur Seal Treaty (third paragraph) primarily

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong2% picked this

    establish the earliest point in time at which fur seals were considered to be on

    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.

  2. Wrong Purpose3% picked this

    indicate that several animals in addition to sea otters were covered by various regulatory exemptions

    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".

  3. Wrong Purpose25% picked this

    demonstrate that there is a well-known legal precedent for prohibiting the hunting

    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.

  4. Unsupported Relationship0% picked this

    suggest that the sea otter population was imperiled by Russian seal hunters and not

    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.

  5. Correct71% picked this

    help explain the evolution of Alaska Natives' legal rights with respect to handicrafts

    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.

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