GWD 讨论帖 GWD-1-25-28

鉴于最近讨论帖几乎都是有关于GWD题目及争议答案的问题. 我将会慢慢的把所有的GWD 文章分类, 制作文章个别讨论帖. 加上以前已有的讨论及参考答案. 希望对备考的朋友们有帮助. 先写在前面, 因为时间实在有限,我只能每天慢慢更新预计在八月初才能完成. 对于最近考试的朋友只好说声抱歉了. 还有文章更新将不会按照GWD 的顺序, 但同一次更新的都会是在同一个GWD考试中的. 希望以后提问都可以先查这个讨论稿中的资料如果还有问题请都用 GWD 31 的题号提问. 因为GWD 31 题目较齐, 统一后版主们也好整理.
  (所有编排以 TaoTao 31 为基准)

所有讨论稿的主连结都会集中在GWD总讨论搞:

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=25&ID=179048

***************************************************************************************************************************************************

** 二楼是原文章,有文章的中文标题及和其相对的题号和GWD套号

**三楼是这篇文章的一个以前讨论比较完整连结, 我把一个比较完整的中文解释节录了出来.讨论帖中有很详细的结构分析, 喜欢琢磨题目的朋友们, 进去看看, 收获应该会很大

**四楼-这篇以前其实讨论的以经很透彻, 我就不重覆以前说过的了, 一来浪费大家时间二来可能也解释不如以前N人们好. 只是这篇文章难在 1)行数多, 还没做就怕了, 2)一遍看完可能还不懂, 考试时可没法让你慢慢琢磨, 讨论, 在此我将思路简化一下, 希望对实际考试有帮助

**五楼开始开放给有问题或建议的朋友讨论.

这篇文章的一个以前讨论比较完整连结, 我顺便把一个比较完整的中文解释节录了出来

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=25&ID=68499

讨论帖中有很详细的结构分析, 喜欢琢磨题目的朋友们, 进去看看, 收获应该会很大.
    

1908年高院裁定Fort Berthold保留地的印第安人的对于流经或其附近水源的用水权，而其依据试当初建立保留的的treaty。虽然这个treaty上没有清楚地写明用水权，高院认定当初政府在设立保留地的时候就有意保障印第安人的用水权，否则保留地将因为无水可用而变得荒芜。后来的决定，引用了W这个法案的判定，设定了政府为一些特定的目的留出一些水资源的条件：（1）这些地不在政府的直接管辖范围之内（保留地的同义词）；（2）这些土地从政府的公共用地中单列出来用以其他的特殊目的；（3）政府在设立保留地时也有意保留用水权的意图。

一些印第安部落通过法院的判决享用了用水权，而他们的依据是历史遗留及在美国成立之前他们就享有用水权。RG部落就是这样的一个例子，在1848年新墨西哥成为美国的一部分之前，RG部落就生活在这里。尽管那个时候新墨西哥成为美国的一部分，但是RG的这片土地却从来没有成为过联邦政府的公共用地（暗示不符合上述三种情况的第一种），也没有任何treaty, executive order使得将RG的这片土地设立为保留地。然而这些事实并不影响W条例在RG上的适用性。事实上什么组成保留地只是一个实际操作问题，而不是法律定义的问题，因为RG的这片土地一向被政府视作保留地。这个方式在1963年Arizona VS California的案例中得以印证，在该案例中高院表示保留地是通过何种方式建立起来的并不影响W对它的适用性。因此，从1848年起，即RG被认为是保留地的那一年开始，RG部落的人都享有优先用水权。

简化一下文章思路，大体应该是这样：

1908年的一个case引发了之后关于什么样的条件下保留地拥有优先用水权的判定。

但是呢，有一些印第安人部落的情况却不符合这样几个标准（至少文章只提了不符合1，2两种），但是他们一样享有优先用水权，因为他们从一开始就被等同于保留地看待，而这样的一种认识在1963年的一个case中又得以印证。

这篇以前其实讨论的以经很透彻, 我就不重覆以前说过的了, 一来浪费大家时间二来可能也解释不如以前N人们好. 只是这篇文章难在 1)行数多, 还没做就怕了, 2)一遍看完可能还不懂, 考试时可没法让你慢慢琢磨, 讨论, 在此我想将思路简化一下, 希望对实际考试有帮助

这题以快速解题为目的来说:

1)      快速文章扫一遍, 仅注意重点句和结论. 细节瞄过即可. (读太细有些反正也看不懂)

P1:

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 preserving
                for them the waters without which
                their lands would have been useless.

这里分别是第一段的第一二句话. 看过后知道刚好一个是主题, 一个有小转折并补充了一下第一句. 红色的部份是去掉一些句中废话, 真正需要念的. 之后的
        法律条律, 对文章结构逻辑差一点的大概看看, 胆子大点的就省略吧.

P2: 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. (主题)

这里
        “also” 其实是很重要的字. 读到的瞬间可以有两的思考方式. 1) 前段有提到一群人
        (不一定是Indians) 有established water rights based on traditional diversion….   或 2) 前段提到了其他所用来establish水权的方法. 应该脑中很快知道是 2) 不是 1)

后面 for example 属于对主题的叙述举例. 略读或直接跳过. 中间因为看不倒转折语. 直接去看文章结论.

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.
            

乍看之下, 看不太懂. 在前一句也看一下:

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.

这里知道
        reservation site 怎么设定的和水权没太大关系.

现再整篇文章大概只看了四句. 看我打了很多字, 但是整体思路在脑中加看句子应该不超过一分半.

现在开始做题:

GWD-10-Q25:

The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn

from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?

A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands

B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands

C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public

lands

D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians

are limited by the Winters doctrine

E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the

traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
            

这题是问这个
        Rio Grande Pueblos 例子在文中是做什么用. 你可以回去定位把例子看一下. 也可以不看. 因为你知道这个例子是在文章中做第二句主题句的例证. 所以一定是第二段开头提到的建立水权方法的例证, 而且是和第一段所提过的方法有所不同. 所以省时间最好不读例子直接读例子后对其的解释. (因为考的是此例子在文章中功用而不是例子内容)

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.

这里可以很肯定的知道是A. 其他选项连想都不用想. 这里
                有however 蛮重要的.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GWD-10-Q26:
            

The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 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.

B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.

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

D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with

reserved water rights.

E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in

order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

这题以前题及段落逻辑关系加上一些无关取非可以马上秒杀.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GWD-10-Q27:
            

According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort
                Berthold Indian Reservation?

A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.

B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters

case.

C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.

D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.

E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona
            v. California.

“according to the passage” 知道是细节定位. 从第一段的主题加转折(希望主题句内容可以记住, 也不过就读了四句, 在不然回头定位也可以马上秒杀.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GWD-10-Q28:
            

The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations

B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes

C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American

Indian tribes

D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government

recognized the water rights of American Indians

E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian

reservations

这题反而较难. 因为每个选项都看似有可能. (而且说实在文章也只读了四五句)

但是仔细看可以感觉到其实很多选项都应该只是段落大意. 并不是全文的 purpose. 仔细回顾一下主题句子.

P1:

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 preserving
                for them the waters without which
                their lands would have been useless.

P2: 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.

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.
            

1. 全篇讲的并不是
                       establish indian reservations, 而是 water rights

2. 好像对, 先留

3. 作者并没有 question.

4. 无关

5. 重点是 water rights, 不是 reservations.

由此答案 B (答案是比出来的)

问第25题，文章中是This fact, however, has not barred application
            of the Winters doctrine，题目选项是Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands 。  

     是不是这样理解，因为this fact has not barred application,所以以为着原来it is suggested that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands 。

lz好用心，这篇我看得很晕。。。