Q4

[legalrabbithole]

Could someone please walk me through #4? I got it correct because I eliminated the other four answer choices but truthfully, I hated all of them.

Is (B) saying that the FWS should continue to be used as intended since the 1986 case upheld the FWS?

[maryadkins]

Tough question to deal with, and it's great you were able to get to (B) through POE.

We look back to see where the passage discusses the court in the 1986 case--at the beginning of paragraph 4. The FWS seized clothes made with sea otter pelts and when the woman who made them sued, the court ruled for the FWS. And that's all we get about the 1986 case.

This tells us that the court's view of "tradition" was aligned with the FWS. What was the FWS's view of "tradition?" They had to be commonly produced before 1972 (line 30) and within living memory (line 34).

(A) is unsupported. We aren't told anything about compromise.
(B) first off, I note that "commonly" is synonymous with "regularly"--but where else do we see this language? Line 17! We're told the the prevalent idea of "tradition" is continuity and regularity of a practice. That's the old view, before the 1991 case--and the 1986 court upheld the standard, old view. So this works.
(C) There is nothing suggesting everyday discourse is the standard.
(D) Likewise, nothing appears in the passage to support (D).
(E) There is nothing in the relevant text referencing people's concerns.

[legalrabbithole]

Straight to the point, thanks so much mary for the explanation