-modified.png?h=56&w=56&mode=stretch)
Reading Passage Question
The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues affecting Native Americans in ways that have pleased Indian nations. Many of the Court's decisions have resulted from political compromises that looked more to the mood of the times than to enduring legal principles. However, accommodation is a feature of the American legal system, and judicial decisions must take this into account.
Despite the "accommodating" nature of the judicial system, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court's power has usually been beneficial to Native Americans, at least on minor issues, and has not been entirely detrimental on larger, more important issues. Certainly, there have been decisions that call this assertion into question. Some critics believe that the patronizing tone of many court opinions, as well as the apparent rejection of Native American values, are important factors to consider when reviewing a case. However, the assertion's validity can be demonstrated by referring to two significant contributions that have resulted from the exercise of judicial power.
First, the Court has established judicial construction rules that, in general, favor Native American litigants' rights. The court's stance has been shaped by recognition of the distinct disadvantages Native Americans faced in the past when dealing with settlers. Treaties were invariably written in English for the benefit of their authors, whereas tribal leaders were accustomed to making treaties on the strength of mutual promises sealed by religious commitment and individual integrity. Written treaties were frequently broken, and Native Americans were subjected to fraud as well as political and military aggression. The Court recognises that past injustices to Native Americans cannot be sanctioned by law. As a result, treaty ambiguities are to be interpreted in favor of Native American claimants, treaties are to be interpreted as Native Americans would have understood them, and treaties, under the reserved rights doctrine, reserve to Native Americans all rights not expressly granted away in other treaties.
A second accomplishment of the judicial system is the protection provided against state encroachment on tribal affairs. Because of the direct threat that such expansion poses to the exercise of federal powers, federal judges are not inclined to view efforts to expand states' powers and jurisdictions favorably. In the absence of a federal statute directly and clearly assigning a function to the states, federal judges are inclined to reserve for the federal government—and the tribal governments under its charge—all powers and rights that they can be said to have historically possessed.
“The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues” is a GMAT reading comprehension exercise. Candidates need to be highly proficient in GMAT reading comprehension. There are 7 comprehension questions in this GMAT reading comprehension section. The purpose of the GMAT Reading Comprehension questions is to evaluate candidates' comprehension, analysis, and application skills. Candidates who are actively preparing can benefit from GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions.
Solution and Explanation
- According to the passage, one reason why the United States Supreme Court “has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations” (lines 1–4) is that
(A) Native Americans have been prevented from presenting their concerns persuasively
(B) the Court has failed to recognize that the Indian nations’ concerns are different from those of other groups or from those of the federal government
(C) the Court has been reluctant to curtail the powers of the federal government
(D) Native Americans faced distinct disadvantages in dealing with settlers in the past
(E) the Court has made political compromises in deciding some cases
Answer: (E)
Explanation: The first option is a wrong answer as there is no mention of it in the passage. The second option is also an invalid answer. The following two options are also wrong answers as they are out of context to the passage. As a result, the final option is the correct answer as it was stated in the first paragraph.
- It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme Court decision that
(A) demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important
(B) protected the rights of the states in conflicts with the federal government
(C) demonstrated recognition of the unfair treatment Native Americans received in the past
(D) reflected consideration of the hardships suffered by Native Americans because of unfair treaties
(E) prevented repetition of inequities experienced by Native Americans in the past
Answer: (A)
Explanation: The problem is that courts do not consider native values when making decisions. As a result, courts should consider those values in order to compensate for this "incorrect" behavior. The first option, according to this, is the correct answer because it fits perfectly. The second option is inappropriate in this context. The third and fourth options are also incorrect because they are outside the scope of the critic. The final option is contradictory.
- It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to
A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case
Answer: (C)
Explanation: The first option is incorrect because it is impossible to infer. The second option is also incorrect because it is outside of the scope of the question. The fourth option contains elements that were not considered as the critic's state. The final option contains an unmentioned and really quite extreme statement, so it is also incorrect. Finally, the third option is the correct answer.
- The author’s attitude toward the United States Supreme Court’s resolution of legal issues of concern to Native Americans can best be described as one of
(A) wholehearted endorsement
(B) restrained appreciation
(C) detached objectivity
(D) cautious opposition
(E) suppressed exasperation
Answer: (B)
Explanation: This first choice is overly extreme and ignores accommodating behaviour as well as the exclusion of native values. The author is not entirely objective as he expresses his appreciation, so the third option is incorrect. The fourth choice, which is the exact opposite, is also incorrect. The final option is too extreme and undoubtedly does not represent the author's viewpoint. Therefore, the second choice is the appropriate response.
- It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states’ powers and jurisdictions with respect to Native American affairs would be
(A) possible only with the consent of the Indian nations
(B) favorably viewed by the United States Supreme Court
(C) in the best interests of both state and federal governments
(D) detrimental to the interests of Native Americans
(E) discouraged by most federal judges in spite of legal precedents supporting the extension
Answer: (D)
Explanation: The proper answer is option number four. This is due to the fact that a second accomplishment of the legal system is the protection it has provided against state intrusion into tribal affairs. The remaining options are all false conclusions because they might contain inaccurate information.
- The author’s primary purpose is to
(A) contrast opposing views
(B) re-evaluate traditional beliefs
(C) reconcile divergent opinions
(D) assess the claims made by disputants
(E) provide evidence to support a contention
Answer: (E)
Explanation: Given that it contains inaccurate information, the first choice is an invalid one. For the same reason, the second option is also unacceptable. The following two choices are also incorrect answers. The last choice is the right response. This is due to the debate over whether SC resolved legal issues that affected Native Americans in a way that was advantageous to them.
- It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans to have been
(A) irreproachable on legal grounds
(B) reasonably supportive in most situations
(C) guided by enduring principles of law
(D) misguided but generally harmless
(E) harmful only in a few minor cases
Answer: (B)
Explanation: The proper answer is the second choice. This is due to the fact that it is important to note that the Supreme Court has generally used its authority in ways that have benefited Native Americans. Additionally, it hasn't had a completely negative impact on the bigger, more significant issues. The remaining choices are all incorrect answers.
Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Samples
- ‘Women’s literature’ refers to literature written by women GMAT reading comprehension
- Frederick Douglass was unquestionably the most famous African American of the nineteenth century GMAT Reading Comprehension
- A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity GMAT Reading Comprehension
- Most people associate bartering with poor or undeveloped societies GMAT Reading comprehension
- Government policy in Frieland has traditionally favored foreign investment GMAT Reading Comprehension
- Mechanisms for Recognizing Kin are Found Throughout the Plant and Animal Kingdoms GMAT Reading Comprehension
- No One can Say where the Bones of Machiavelli Rest GMAT Reading Comprehension
- Plate Tectonics is a Scientific Theory that Describes the Large-Scale Motions of Earth's Lithosphere GMAT Reading Comprehension
- The Current Kneejerk Preference for Organic Over Mechanistic Organizational Structures GMAT Reading Comprehension
- The Debate Over the Extent of Regulation Needed Over Internet Providers GMAT Reading Comprehension
- With the Explosion of the Technology Industry in the Late 1990s GMAT Reading Comprehension
- Although it is an Imperfect Model for Describing a Complex Market GMAT Reading Comprehension
- For an Online Retailer, Inventory Represents a Major Source GMAT Reading Comprehension
- Pricing is the most influential medium of communication that companies GMAT Reading Comprehension
- The hypothesis that people ascribe more value to things GMAT reading comprehension
- Since the dawning of antitrust regulation in America at the beginning of the twentieth century GMAT Reading Comprehension
- Relieving an impoverished country of its debt would seem to almost unavoidably GMAT Reading Comprehension
- American companies may find the solution to their performance related problems in their own backyard GMAT reading comprehension
- American economists continually attempt to gauge the health of the economy GMAT reading comprehension
- Sarah Meyers McGinty, in her useful new book Power Talk GMAT reading comprehension
Comments