Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT9 S1 P2 Q12 Explanation

BIA Readjustment

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

TopicsInferenceScience

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

During the 1940s and 1950s the United States government developed a new policy toward Native Americans, often known as “readjustment.” Because the increased awareness of civil rights in these decades helped reinforce the belief that life on reservations prevented Native Americans from exercising the rights guaranteed to citizens under the United States the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to convince the Oneida tribe of Wisconsin to accept readjustment.

The culmination of BIA efforts to sway the Oneida occurred at a meeting that took place in the fall of 1956. The BIA suggested that it would be to the Oneida’s benefit to own their own property and, like other homeowners, pay real estate taxes on it. The BIA also emphasized that, the $0.52 annuity guaranteed in perpetuity to each member of the tribe under the Canandaigua Treaty.

The efforts of the BIA to “sell” readjustment to the tribe failed because the Oneida realized that they had heard similar offers before. The Oneida delegates reacted negatively to the BIA’s first suggestion because taxation of Native American lands had been one past vehicle for dispossessing the Oneida: after the distribution of the terms of a treaty might jeopardize the many pending land claims based upon the treaty.

As a result of the 1956 meeting, the Oneida rejected readjustment. Instead, they determined to improve tribal life by lobbying for federal monies for postsecondary education, for the improvement of drainage on tribal lands, and for the building of a convalescent home for tribal members. Thus, by able to survive as a tribe in their homeland.

What this question is testing

Inference

Your task

Find what must be true based on what the passage or stimulus states.

Common trap

Answers that are plausible or likely but not actually guaranteed by the text.

Winning move

Keep only the choice the statements fully support — eliminate anything that requires an extra assumption.

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

The question
12.

The passage suggests that the Oneida delegates viewed the Canandaigua

Answer choices

  1. Correct46% picked this

    a valuable safeguard of certain Oneida rights

    Why this is right

    Since the delegates were worried that changing the treaty might jeopardize pending land claims, they must believe that keeping the treaty as is safeguards pending land claims. The opposite of jeopardizing something is protecting it. This answer is doing a Flip the Fact style move, where we were told, "If we mess up the treaty, it could endanger our claims to land", and so they re-write that as, "If we keep the treaty, it will protect our claims to land". The language of 'rights and privileges' is weirdly new, but by saying "certain rights and privileges" we only need to know of one right or privilege that the treaty would protect to support that language. A claim to use land (i.e. a reservation, which is a parcel of land reserved for use by a Native tribe) is a certain right/privilege.

    Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Opposite, if anything36% picked this

    the source of many past problems for the

    We get the feel that the delegates value the treaty and don't want to mess it up (they're worried about changing the terms of the treaty and thereby jeopardizing its validity). So saying it's a source of many past problems is an opposite for "we want to protect this and leave it unchanged".

  3. Out of Scope1% picked this

    a model for the type of agreement they hoped to reach with

    Out of Scope: model Opposite: hope to reach The delegates seemed not keen at all to strike up any new agreements with the feds, so we can't support the idea that the treaty was going to be a model for some new agreement.

  4. Out of Scope: important step3% picked this

    an important step toward recognition of their status as an independent

    This answer seems like a relatively plausible belief, but it's not supported by anything in the text. We know they're worried about changing the treaty because doing so might mess up some of the protections provided by the treaty. It's too much of a stretch to go from that limited piece of knowledge to saying they view this treaty as, "an important step in recognizing their status as an independent nation". This answer is so strong that it would also imply choice (A). If a treaty were an important step in establishing that the Oneida had an independent nation, then it would also be a way to safeguard some of their rights and privileges (granting a group of people sovereign status is granting them the right/privilege to self-govern). We can never pick an answer that, if true, would imply that another answer is also correct.

  5. Opposite14% picked this

    an obsolete agreement without relevance for their

    The delegates value the treaty and don't want to change it, lest they mess up pending (i.e. current) land claims. So they definitely wouldn't consider it obsolete with no current relevance.

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