Q11

 
woof90
Thanks Received: 3
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 7
Joined: July 07th, 2013
 
 
 

Q11

by woof90 Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:42 pm

The answer key is D which I find hard to see as an attractive answer.

While Line 21-24 does state that ancient graves are generally unsuccessful in having a standing, sentence after also recognizes that, given standing, common law may provide a basis.. so answer D seems contrary.

Clarifications would be appreciated.
User avatar
 
rinagoldfield
Thanks Received: 308
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 390
Joined: December 13th, 2011
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q11

by rinagoldfield Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:04 pm

Hey woof90! I feel like you just made a good argument for why answer choice (D) is CORRECT.

As you note, lines 21-24 state that "in most cases involving ancient graves, to recognize that Native Americans have standing would represent a significant expansion of common law."

(D) pretty much rephrases those lines. Or, put a third way: common law doesn’t help Native Americans achieve standing in most cases involving ancient graves.
The rest of the passage discusses how common law helps Native American claims ONCE STANDING HAS BEEN ACHIEVED (lines 24-25). But answer choice (D) specifically talks about "establishing that Native Americans have standing," not helping Native Americans after standing has been established.

Does that make sense?

In terms of the other answer choices:

(A) is unsupported. The passage discusses recent graves in the context of establishing standing (lines 13-15) but not once standing has been achieved.

(B) is extreme in degree. "Usually" an issue?

(C) is contradicted. The passage states that property law CAN be used in cases involving ancient graves once standing has been established (lines 28-32).

(E) is unsupported. We have no idea how often Native Americans invoke common law in such cases.

Hope that helps!
User avatar
 
Mab6q
Thanks Received: 31
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 290
Joined: June 30th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q11

by Mab6q Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:09 pm

I just want to expound on why B is incorrect, because I fell for the trap here. So we know generally in cases involving ancient graves, if standing is achieved then the Courts have upheld a distinction between communal and individual property. The issue, however, is that this problem is talking about all ancient grave cases, even those where standing is not achieved. Thus, we can't make any conclusion on the likelihood that B suggests. This type of flaw occurs more generally in LR.
"Just keep swimming"