DISCUSSION: This is in the fourth paragraph. The 1991 case is the one that ruled in favor of allowing Alaska Natives to continue their traditional use of sea otter pelts.
The judges heard testimonials describing the tradition (lines 41-45) and determined that the government’s definition of traditional was too narrow (lines 45-57).
- The fourth paragraph doesn’t mention “long-standing”. This term was only mentioned in the second paragraph.
- The court ruled that “within living memory” was not the right standard to use in determining what is traditional, particularly when Alaska Natives had been banned from exercising their tradition. The definition of “within living memory” was not at issue.
- The intent of the regulations was never mentioned.
- It’s not even clear if the Fur Seal Treaty is still in effect. The fourth paragraph doesn’t mention any interpretations of this treaty.
- CORRECT. The historical facts are that Alaska Natives had made many uses of sea otters prior to the occupation of Alaska by the Russians (lines 41-45).
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions