The following passage was adapted from an article 1998.
The government of Belize granted concessions for logging on approximately 480,000 acres in its Toledo District. The affected regions are populated primarily by descendants of the Maya, whose civilization flourished throughout Mexico and Central America for hundreds of years prior to European contact. In response, Maya organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the and seek to have the concessions declared in violation of Mayan rights.
The assertion by the Maya of land and resource rights is based on both common law and international law. Common-law jurisdictions, which derive their common law from English legal tradition, use custom and precedent as bases for deciding court cases, rather than relying solely on written laws or codes. Precedent involves a to precedents of other common-law countries in the absence of relevant precedent in Belize's case law.
The common law of indigenous rights is also shaped by norms that are embraced by the world community and that are now part of, or becoming part of, international law. For example, a 1992 decision by the high court of Australia recognizing indigenous rights states that "international law is a legitimate and Belize's courts should therefore allow the covenant to inform the creation of common-law rights in Belize.
As a domestic constitutional matter, Belize is free to develop its common-law jurisprudence on the doctrine of indigenous rights independently of other jurisdictions and their incorporation of international norms, regardless of its judicial system's customary practice involving the use of foreign precedent. However, that the common law of Belize flows from the argues for a presumption in favor of recognizing indigenous rights in Belize.
What this question is testing
Your task
Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion more likely to be true.
Common trap
Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.
Winning move
Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes it.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.