【OG20-P418-503题】The passage suggests that, if the criteria discuss_OG20新题_-{$seo

阅读RC-17026 (第2/8题)

报告题目错误

请选择错误类型：

请描述一下这个错误：

取消

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if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands— i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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?

A

The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens. 分析A选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
B

Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights. 分析B选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
C

There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos. 分析C选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
D

Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights. 分析D选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
E

Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose. 分析E选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

网友解析

暂无雷哥网文字解析

当前版本由 Edward. 更新于2021-04-23 15:26:27 感谢由 Edward. 对此题目的解答所做出的贡献。

1. 推断题
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
A. FB是Winters法案中的，而Winters法案是criteria建立的前提，所以不冲突。
B. 和建立时间无关
C. RG从来没有被正式划为保留地，所以如果严格按照前文提到的标准，RG没有水权。
D. 无关
E. 无关

题目讨论（10条评论）

提交

217926act

提取关键词，提高阅读速度。建立保留地的协约，虽然没有提到水权，但法院规定联邦政府与美印第安人共享水，否则他们的土地将会没有用。后面的决定，引自winster，决定在以下三个条件下，法院有使用联邦政府为了特殊目的保留水的权利。1. 土地位于专有的联邦管辖内；2.土地已经正式从联邦公用地中撤出；3. 当建立保护地时，政府有意保护土地和水的情况。（他们是唯一的标准是什么意思呢？就是只能使用winster。

0 0 回复 2022-08-15 20:35:15
ziqi

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

0 0 回复 2022-03-30 18:16:56
999+

这个高亮处能不能不要乱画明明是10-20段，却画到第一段三个规定，找半天也没找到浪费时间也浪费心情。。

11 0 回复 2021-10-09 16:56:41
662352yo回复999+

那在哪儿啊？我现在也没有找到...

0 0 回复 2022-12-30 14:18:29

Seeyouth

Rio的水权没有法律基础, 因为Rio从来没有不是美国federal public lands的一部分，美国建立之前就在了（the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands），但是定位的水权的第二个标准中说了the land has been formally withdrawn from federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved；该地区曾被正式从联邦公共领地中分离出---- 例如：为了合法私人用途，从联邦领地中分离
所以逻辑就简单了：Rio自古就存在，不是联邦的 + 标准：地得是联邦分离出去的
结论：Rio的水权将没有法律基础

(A)Berhold保留地居民的水权将不会优于其他居民的水权：Berhold是Winters法案中的，之后的法案的3个标准又是citing Winters法案，再结合文章最后一句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.（Pueblo Indians 都是有优选水的权）
所以A选项说反了，是优先的

(B)1848年前建立的保留地将被认为没有水权，说反了 是有的。P2: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.

(D)除了印第安保留地之外的保留地将不会被赋予水权 未提及（不信试试读完全文看看有没有）

(E)建立保留地的treaty将会明确因特定目的提到水权 未提及treaty会提到什么

0 回复 2021-09-01 23:49:13

Ricky19

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。所以如果只有上一段文中所说的三条法律基础，印第安人是没有水权的

2 0 回复 2021-07-29 11:44:08
如果有时间的话我也能做对

分析的都没问题，谁来说一下怎么在1分45秒时间里面大概率把这道题做对，才是真的牛x

1 0 回复 2021-07-19 12:44:53
如果有时间的话我也能做对回复如果有时间的话我也能做对

Although this treaty did not mention water rights,参照高亮部分前面的引导句划重点 C ">There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.

0 0 回复 2021-07-19 12:49:20
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
Tyler724回复Mariposa爱学习

常识个p

0 0 回复 2021-04-10 17:15:01

王愚人回复Mariposa爱学习

常识个p

0 0 回复 2021-04-21 21:19:16
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

2 0 回复 2020-05-20 10:21:40

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 回复 2019-11-13 09:45:52

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 回复 2019-10-24 01:40:26