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
Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.
Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.
Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.
Which one of the following can most reasonably be inferred from the passage?
The International Covenant on Civil
Why this is right
This seems great! It's a very weak idea, because it's just saying that something within this document is relevant to recognizing common-law indigenous rights. We heard about this Covenant in P3, in the context of Australia recognizing common-law indigenous rights. The second to last sentence of P3 spells out our support for this answer: In recognizing the existence of common-law indigenous rights, the court cited Australia's obligations under the Covenant. Clearly, from that sentence, the court thinks that some language in the covenant expresses an obligation that is relevant to common-law indigenous rights.
Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
The Maya's lawsuit pertaining to
The fourth sentence of P2 says that "courts in Belize have not yet ruled on matters concerning indigenous rights".
2% picked this
To acquire rights over the
We only hear that the Maya assert rights over lands and resources and seek to have the concessions declared in violation of those rights. Their case is only to strike down the concessions. It doesn't say that they seek full ownership. The fact that they think the concessions violate rights they have over land and resources doesn't even imply that they think they currently have full ownership of the land. They may think they have "a right to live in the forests in the Toledo District" and that having logging companies cut down the trees would abridge that right. That's different from thinking they have full ownership of that land.
4% picked this
The high court of Australia's
P2 is where we learn that common-law courts who are adjudicating cases on indigenous rights will often look to precedents from other common law systems. P3 is where we learn that common-law courts who are adjudicating cases on indigenous rights will often look to norms embraced by the world community. Australia is brought up in P3. We know their court's recognition of indigenous rights was based in part on norms embraced by the world community, but we can't causally connect their court's decision to precedents from other countries (actual court cases adjudicated in other countries).
9% picked this
International law concerning indigenous rights
We never talk about jurisdictions that don't recognize common-law legal systems. The passage is only talking about those who do. We can't assume that these other jurisdictions misrepresent international law. (We don't even know whether or not they choose to align themselves with international law.)
5% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.