中间图

Or
banner
icon
OG18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-17028 (第3/8题) Time Cost00:00
收藏
该题平均耗时:2m16s,平均正确率:55.6%

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if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands— i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3) the circumstances reveal the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constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.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-P418-504题】

Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California, as that decision is described in the passage, and the criteria discussed in lines 10–20?

  • 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26DfD提供。更多GMAT题目请
暂无雷哥网文字解析
当前还没有完善解析,欢迎在这里提交你的解答,等待老师审核~

题目讨论 5条评论)

用户头像
提交
  • 用户头像

    Run123

    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.
    
    扩展原判例
    0 0 回复 2020-05-20 10:28:49
  • 用户头像

    245731m

    前面所说的criteria是说的那些特殊的被定义的情况,后文AVC所说的情况可以被定义到文章的最后一个层次,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.根据文章的通篇描述来看,第二自然段是对文章第一自然段补充particular purpose的后面特殊情况的讨论,所以两者之间的关系是补充和解释说明的关系,因而是更range的范围
    0 0 回复 2020-04-08 12:49:17
  • 用户头像

    jydebbie

    在Winter s诉美国(1908年)一案中,最高法院认为,通过或毗邻Berthold印第安堡保留地的水的使用权是根据确立保留的条约保留给美洲印第安人的。虽然这项条约没有提到水权,但法院裁定,联邦政府在设立保留时,打算公平地对待美国印第安人,为他们保留没有水,他们的土地将是无用的。后来的裁决援引Winters的话说,如果(1)所涉土地位于联邦专属管辖下的飞地内;(2)该土地已被正式从联邦公共土地上撤出,即从联邦土地使用法规定的可供私人使用的联邦土地存量中撤出,并被搁置或保留;(3)情况表明,政府在建立保留时打算保留水和土地。
    
    
    一些美洲印第安人部落还根据其在美国获得主权之前对某些水域的传统转移和使用,通过法院确立了水权。例如,当1848年美国获得对新墨西哥州的主权时,格兰德河就已经存在了。虽然当时他们成为美国的一部分,但普韦布洛土地从未正式构成联邦公共土地的一部分;无论如何,没有任何条约、法规或行政命令将普韦布洛人从公共土地上指定或撤回为美国印第安人保留地。然而,这一事实并没有阻止温特斯理论的适用。什么是美洲印第安人的保留是一个实践问题,而不是法律定义问题,普韦布洛人一直被美国视为保留。亚利桑那诉加利福尼亚案(1963年)支持了这种务实的做法,最高法院在该案中指出,任何类型的联邦保留的产生方式都不影响Winters原则对其的适用。因此,从1848年起,普韦布洛印第安人保留的水权优先于其他公民的水权,在这一年,普韦布洛人必须被视为保留。
    
    中文我都看不懂
    0 0 回复 2019-12-25 17:55:53
  • 用户头像

    小馄吞

      1) 判断题型为信息题:考查文中提到的两个法案--- Winters及AvC---之间的关系,需要基于对全文的把握来做题。第一段中,“criteria”适用于该地已经被正式划分为保留地的情况;而第二段中,AvC指出水权的获取并不一定要基于先前的任何legal definition,而可以基于联邦政府的实践(是否把该地看做印第安保留地)。所以可以说AvC扩展了Winters法案关于获得水权的适用范围,正解为(B)。
      2) 错解分析:
      (A):文中AvC和Winters两者间并无相互排斥和否定。属于“与文意相反”类错解。
      (C): 第二段首句说“some American Indian tribes”还通过“criteria in line 10-20”之外的手段获得水权,这说明AvC并不是sole exception of “criteria in line 13-20”。属于“与文意相反”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。
    1 0 回复 2019-10-24 01:41:19
    • 评论用户头像

      170605ehvb回复小馄吞

      所以c为什么不是exception?

      0 0 回复 2020-05-19 20:20:02

  • 用户头像

    Lainey00

    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.
    0 0 回复 2019-08-11 17:21:47
    • 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