有没有人觉得OG 12 57-63题讲reservation的water right的那篇很难的？

joyjojo821 · 发表于 2010-3-16 17:15:08

一共7道题，错了5题，彻底崩溃，更崩溃的是看了解释还是不太明白。有没有人也觉得这篇很难的？我把我错的贴在文章后面了。
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters fl owing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did 5
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 10
Winters, established that courts can fi nd 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withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn 15
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. 20
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 25
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 30
ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public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 35
defi nition, 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 40
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. 45

58. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in
lines 10–20 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
Belknap 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.
答案是C.我觉得A也不错啊。题目中说if the criteria discussed in lines 10–20 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights，我理解是这些criteria并没有给 the inhabitants of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation优先权。还有D我也不清楚为什么错。

59. Which of the following most accurately summarizes
the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines
38–42, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in
lines 10–20?
(A) Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and
establishes a competing set of criteria for
applying the Winters doctrine.
(B) Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters
doctrine applies to a broader range of situations
than those defi ned by these criteria.
(C) Arizona v. California represents the sole example
of an exception to the criteria as they were set
forth in the Winters doctrine.
(D) Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters
doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these
criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
(E) Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived
from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands
other than American Indian reservations.
答案是B.我觉得D也没有错啊。Arizona v. California 认为federal reservation的建立不影响the application to it of the Winters doctrine.而winter doctrine的确明确justify water rights的三种情况，不正是D所说的意思吗？

61. 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
答案是A.这道的解释更看不懂了。

63. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens
other than American Indians to the use of water
fl owing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
(A) guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.
California
(B) abolished by the Winters doctrine
(C) deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties
explicitly require this
(D) guaranteed by federal land-use laws
(E) limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians
答案选E.这里答案E里的prior claims是指什么？看了解释还是一头雾水。

有没有高人来指点迷津？谢谢～～～

joyjojo821 · 发表于 2010-3-17 11:00:55

没有人吗？

AppleStrudel · 发表于 2010-3-18 14:58:49

同感。我个人的困难主要是题材生疏，再加上对法律概念犯怵，前两遍读完也是毫无头绪。但是想到GMAT应该着重考文章结构，专业背景不应是主要困难，第三遍再看就找到了文章观点：到底哪里支持保留地的用水权，哪里反对。关键在两段首句。

第一段首句说某保留地通过最高法庭确认了用水权Winters 文案，依据是建立保留地时的treaty。虽然treaty没提用水权，但是从人性角度来说显然应该包括。但是后来，法庭还核准在三种特定情况下联邦可以保留用水权，（三种情况第一遍不用细看）。

第二段说某些部落也是通过法庭确认了用水权，依据是联邦建立前部落就在使用这块地所以有使用权。接下来举例: RG pueblo建立的早，它的地从来都不是联邦的地。但是不妨碍winters文案的执行。并且加发Arizona文案，补充说明不论保留地建立的基础是什么，winters文案都应执行。所以，pueblo的用水权要优先于一般公民。

问题也考得比一般段落要细致。我在文章读懂了后，题目就差不多了。有空再讨论。

kathy1989717 · 发表于 2010-3-18 17:00:02

这个我第二遍看的时候，已经觉得都能读懂了，但是题依旧做不对。。。

will980980 · 发表于 2010-3-19 03:27:07

今天刚做，错4题，本身没有看懂，不知有没有牛人把全文翻译一下。

chuRiver · 发表于 2010-3-21 09:45:49

错了两道，做笔记时标注了一个“难++”。看文章时就看的很痛苦，画了多一倍的时间，到做题更是对着一个题一个选项纠结半天，如果考场上遇到绝对是打击信心的杀手题。
最主要是对这段话中的三条if不能清晰理解：
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.

文中多次出现reserve与reservation, reservation是保留地, 那么reserve所指的保留是否专指为保留地的人(American Indian)而保留，而非指向reserve前的主语(如government)？这个推论我是从(3)得到的，3中说，政府在建立reservation的时候是想把水和土地一起reserve的。土地权肯定是给印第安人的，所以用水权也是一起给了印第安人。

所以我认为AppleStrudel所理解的“法庭还核准在三种特定情况下联邦可以保留用水权”有误，从他的话看来，他认为这用水权是被联邦自己所留着而没有给印第安人。

糊香肠 · 发表于 2010-3-21 12:19:32

看完了58，59题还是没明白不是not of legal definition么。。。怎么有no legal basis了。。。。选项C
还有60题的this approach里的this指代的是什么啊。。。。

Jessielynn · 发表于 2010-8-11 20:54:41

今天也做到这篇了，7道题居然用了18分钟，错了3个，做对的题目也是一半蒙的，根本没看懂。。。决定仔细研究。。。

merrimack · 发表于 2010-8-12 09:18:36

昨天才做的，我也觉得很难

leanncx · 发表于 2010-8-15 17:56:13

刚做的。。做到一半做不下去了上来逛CD。。。没想到发现了这个帖子。。
我还以为是我最近状态不佳。。原来真的是偏难啊。。自我安慰一下。
一会好好去分析分析。

有没有人觉得OG 12 57-63题讲reservation的water right的那篇很难的？

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()