中间图

Or
icon
OG20官方指南,建议同学们刷3遍。第一遍做题了解题型和考点,第二遍精刷,第三遍集中解决疑难问题。建议考生第一遍刷题采用官方正版纸质书籍,若遇到疑难问题,欢迎在此专区查阅解析,提供解析,参与题目讨论,与所有考生一起解决疑难问题。
阅读RC-17026 (第2/8题) Time Cost00:00
收藏
该题平均耗时:2m27s,平均正确率:38.1%

建议使用官方纸质指南,查看对照完整题目

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands— i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States' acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.

【OG20-P418-503题】

The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 of the text were the only criteria for establishing a reservation's water rights, which of the following would be true?

  • 分析A选项
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • 分析B选项
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • 分析C选项
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • 分析D选项
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • 分析E选项
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
该题目由网友AgRnl1提供。更多GMAT题目请
暂无雷哥网文字解析
当前版本由 mailo 更新于2019-09-05 14:30:23 感谢由 mailo 对此题目的解答所做出的贡献。

这篇感觉是很难。。。做题的时候也半懂。。
P1: Winter这个判决held保留了了印第安人的水权,这个水权是被建立保留地的条约treaty所建立的。这个treaty(注意它不是Winter判决)虽然没有明确提到水权,但法院还是判联邦政府要平等对待印第安人不然他们的土地没了水权就useless了。Later decisions,援引citing了Winter判决,然后联邦政府建立水权可以基于以下3点目的。
P2:印第安人在美国获得主权之前就建立了水权,基于traditional diversion。比如pueblos,然后说他们并不符合P1里3点目的。但This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine,所以pueblos依然有水权,基于实践practice而不是legal definition。然后这种通过实践获得的权力在1963的判决里也得到支持,说获得的manner不妨碍他们apply Winter,即印第安人有水权。
可能最绕的是P1里的3点目的,这些目的可以理解为,除了在针对印第安人的水权问题之外,联邦政府在建立其他水权保留地的时候,需要基于这3种法定情况。所以这三种法定情况,不适用于印第安人,完全是在印第安人保留地水权之外的,因为印第安人的水权基础是practice,第二段整个就在说这个。所以这道题也就选C,因为印第安人的水权基础不是这三条,如果只能用这三条,他们的基础就没了


题目讨论 8条评论)

用户头像
提交
  • 用户头像

    Mariposa爱学习

    这道题的做题方法比较特别
    首先得读懂3个purposes大概是什么
    然后看选项
    A 定位错误
    B 三个点都没有提到年份限制
    C 可以从常识判断
    D 定位到第二段描述Rio Grande pueblos的地方,发现正好对应第2点purpose
    E mention water rights explicitly❌
    0 0 回复 2020-11-14 12:02:39
  • 用户头像

    Run123

    不要陷入细节,本题两段落给出2种establish water rights方式:legal(第一段3个条件)--pragmatic(Pueblos)
    Q:只有legal 方式可以establish a reservation's water rights
    W:Pueblos will be illegitimate
    1 0 回复 2020-05-20 10:21:40
  • 用户头像

    342108no

    “if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 of the text were the *only criteria* for establishing a reservation's water rights, which of the following would be true?”【counter-factual假设题,说明要找的是文中提到的,有其他criteria的例子】
    根据题中“the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”迅速定位到文中第10行以后:文中首先归纳了联邦可以援引Winters原则收回水权的三点条件,然后说RGP的人通过其他方式获得水权,并指出应由历史实践,而非法律定义,来决定该地是否印第安保留地。这就强烈暗示如果按照既有法律基础(即“the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”), RGP的印第安人是无法获得水权的。正解为(C)。
    
     the land has been formally withdrawn from *federal public lands*
     Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of *federal public lands*
    0 0 回复 2019-11-13 09:45:52
  • 用户头像

    小馄吞

     1)判断题型为间接细节题: 根据题中“the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”迅速定位到文中第10行以后:文中首先归纳了联邦可以援引Winters原则收回水权的三点条件,然后说RGP的人通过其他方式获得水权,并指出应由历史实践,而非法律定义,来决定该地是否印第安保留地。这就强烈暗示如果按照既有法律基础(即“the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”), RGP的印第安人是无法获得水权的。正解为(C)。
      2) 错解分析:
      (A):FBIR当地的水权判决即为Winters案件,该案情况应符合Winters原则适用的三点条件,所以不能依据Winters原则作出与实际结论相反的判决。属于“与文意相反”类错解。
      (B): “the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”并未规定具体年份,所以不能说1848年前简历的保留地都不能获得水权。属于“无中生有”类错解。
      (D): “the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”并不只针对印第安保留地而言,而是对所有土地。选项意思和文意相反,属于“与文意相反”类错解。
      (E): 文中明确说道,在建立保留地协议并未提及水权的情况下,Winters法则判定水权所有。选项意思和文意相反,属于“与文意相反”类错解。
    0 0 回复 2019-10-24 01:40:26
  • 用户头像

    小馄吞

      1) 判断题型为直接细节题: 根据题中“the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation”迅速定位到文中1-6行:尽管保留地建立的协议本身未提及水权,最高法院援引该协议,判决 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 的印第安人拥有水权。正解为(D):保留地建立的协议并未提到保留地原居民享有水权。
      2) 错解分析:
      (A):文中只说协议被援引,未说到它被challenge。属于“无中生有”类错解。
      (B): 文中只说协议被援引,未说到它被rescind(解除)。属于“无中生有”类错解。
      (C): 文中没说协议提到了印第安人对土地资源的使用。属于“无中生有”类错解。
      (E): 文中没最高法院对协议进行修改。属于“无中生有”类错解。
    0 0 回复 2019-10-24 01:40:06
  • 用户头像

    杀G750

    context 隔段、
    0 0 回复 2019-09-26 20:42:55
  • 用户头像

    Lainey00

    highlight的地方说:这些标准用于the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands和the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation;下一段提到 the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands;所以,这些criteria是不适用于the Rio Grande pueblos的,而如果仅有highlight部分的criteria的话,the Rio Grande pueblos就没有法律基础支撑了。
    0 0 回复 2019-08-11 17:15:14
  • 用户头像

    Scopio_

    这篇实在是看不懂。。。请问大家怎么做的啊?大神可以讲讲逻辑框架吗?
    0 0 回复 2019-08-10 18:23:42
    • 评论用户头像

      你真幸运回复Scopio_

      https://forum.chasedream.com/thread-912701-1-1.html

      0 0 回复 2019-09-10 15:41:45

    • 评论用户头像

      浪逐曲奇回复Scopio_

      感谢!

      0 0 回复 2019-09-26 23:17:24

    • 手机注册
    • 邮箱注册
    登录>







    关闭图标

    标题图

    • 图标

      知识库学习

      GMAT语法、逻辑、阅读、数学各单项备考知识点学习及测验
    • 图标

      在线做题

      包含GMAT各单项必考知识点题目、OG/PREP/GWD/雷哥讲义题目、难度650/680/700/730题库题目练习及题目解析
    • 图标

      在线模考

      语文套题/数学套题/全套仿真模考,包含GWD/PERP/精选模考等上百套套题模考
    • 图标

      在线测评

      适合5种不同基础的GMAT学员,测评后可自动出具分数报告及复习计划指导
    • 图标

      资料下载

      GMAT必备备考资料下载、鸡精下载、课程课件等免费下载
    • 图标

      课程学习

      注册会员后,可在GMAT课程区,选择免费直播课程及公开课程进行在线学习
    ×
    请你选择你要查看的模考成绩单
    立即开通 暂不开通
    加载图片
    网络异常