RC Question 1 Explanation
DISCUSSION: Main point questions must pass two hurdles:
- Is the answer even true, according to the passage?
- Does the answer describe the main point?
Most answers fails the first test. The second test often means that the answer should refer to every paragraph, but in some cases the main point only covers one paragraph. You have to ask yourself “why is the author telling me this?”
In this case, the author uses two legal cases to argue that the definition of “tradition” is too restrictive.
___________
- CORRECT. This is the best answer. It alludes to the general discussion of tradition in the first two paragraphs, and the specific application to sea otter pelts in paragraphs 3 and 4.
- This only describes paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraphs 1 and 2 applied to tradition generally, not just sea otter pelts. The sea otter cases are just an example illustrating the argument.
- The passage didn’t mention a wave of lawsuits. This answer doesn’t pass the truth test.
- Legal “terms”, plural? The passage is only about one term: tradition.
- This is way too broad. Lines 4-7 tell us that state and federal laws use tradition, but we don’t know if state laws are being challenged. The passage is about how to define tradition, not about legal challenges in general, or vague “concerns”. The natives have a very specific concern: tradition is defined wrong.
B is also wrong because it says “Two court decisions” instead of “Two court cases” as A does. In the passage there’s actually only one court decision that challenges that notion of traditional as long standing and continually practiced. That’s the decision mentioned in paragraph 4.
Good point. There’s often multiple reasons to eliminate an answer. There was indeed only one court case that challenged the government’s definition of traditional.