求助！OG58，关于水权法案很恶心的那篇，做过应该都有印象哈

wsyzzydy

哪位NN能帮我分析下这道题，怎么定的位，又是怎么推理出来的？？其他错误选项又是如何排除的？？这种inference题真的很头疼啊，麻烦大家了~

题目：58.The passage suggests that, if the criteriadiscussed in
lines 10-20 were the only criteria for establishing a
reservation's water rights, which of the following would
be true?（C）

(A)       The water rights of the inhabitantsof 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.


文章
Line    In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters flowing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty

(5)   establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court ruledthat the
federal government, when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with American Indians by
reserving for them the waters without which their
(10) 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
(15) withdrawn from federal publiclands—i.e., withdrawn
from the stock of federal lands available forprivate
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
(20) when establishing thereservation.
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
(25) example, the Rio Grandepueblos 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
(30) any event, no treaty, statute,or executive order has
ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos frompublic
lands as American Indian reservations. This fact,
however, has not barred application of the Winters
doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian
(35) reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
definition, and the pueblos have always beentreated
as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic
approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963),
wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner
(40) in which any type of federalreservation is created
does not affect the application to it of the Winters
doctrine. Therefore, the reservedwater rights of
Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water
rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be
(45) considered to have become reservations.




感激不尽！！

2013rainbow

哪位NN能帮我分析下这道题，怎么定的位，又是怎么推理出来的？？其他错误选项又是如何排除的？？这种inference题真的很头疼啊，麻烦大家了~

题目：58.The passage suggests that, if the criteriadiscussed in
lines 10-20 were the only criteria for establishing a
reservation's water rights, which of the following would
be true?（C）

(A)       The water rights of the inhabitantsof 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.


文章
Line    In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters flowing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty

(5)   establishing the reservation.Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court ruledthat the
federal government, when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with American Indians by
reserving for them the waters without which their
(10) 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
(15) withdrawn from federal publiclands—i.e., withdrawn
from the stock of federal lands available forprivate
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
(20) when establishing thereservation.
Some American Indian tribes have also established 1. 这里的also提醒你说的东西和上面的3个原则是补充关系。
water rights through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to
the United States' acquisition of sovereignty. For    2. Rio Grande Pueblo前面的"for example" 提醒你是例证与3点原则补充的东西(25) example, the Rio Grandepueblos already existed when  1+ 2 推出Rio这个例子要是只靠3点原则就行不通了。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
(30) any event, no treaty, statute,or executive order has
ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos frompublic
lands as American Indian reservations. This fact,
however, has not barred application of the Winters
doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian
(35) reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
definition, and the pueblos have always beentreated
as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic
approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963),
wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner
(40) in which any type of federalreservation is created
does not affect the application to it of the Winters
doctrine. Therefore, the reservedwater rights of
Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water
rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be
(45) considered to have become reservations.




感激不尽！！

-- by 会员 wsyzzydy (2012/2/2 20:44:49)