#1 - Main Point

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14335)

The correct answer choice is (A)

The main point of the passage can be found in the first paragraph: the courts’ failure to clearly define
the concept of “tradition” has given rise to problematic and inconsistent legal results in two legal
cases involving the use of sea otter pelts.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. It is consistent with our prephrase described
above.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect, because the first court decision is consistent
with the interpretation of “tradition” as a long-standing activity that has been regularly and
continually practiced. Only the 1991 decision challenged that interpretation.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice contains an exaggeration: there is no evidence that a “wave
of lawsuits” are now occurring in response to changing regulations.

Answer choice (D): Even though the 1991 decision suggests that certain definitions of legal terms
are under scrutiny in light of new testimonial evidence, the scope of this answer choice is too narrow
and not reflective of the main point of the passage as a whole. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): There is no evidence suggesting that the laws in question are insufficiently
sensitive to indigenous peoples’ concerns: this claim is too broad and outside the scope of the
passage to be correct.

[andrewb22]

I understand why (A) is the best choice, but I'm unclear about the explanation for why (B) is incorrect. The passage does not go into detail about what the 1986 court case was about other than the confiscation of the furs. I don't see anything in the passage related to the tradition aspect. To me it seems like both cases, possibly indirectly, challenged the initial understanding of tradition. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated!

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi Andrew!

Answer choice (B) specifically refers to the court decisions challenging the notion of being "traditional." Although the passage does not go into much detail about what the first court case was about, it does unambiguously state that the court upheld the FWS regulations in its final decision (which does not challenge the notion of being traditional). This is found in line 37 of the passage.

In contrast, under the second case with Dickinson, the passage states that the court now reconsidered what constituted a traditional item in the statute. This then guides the court's final decision, mentioned in lines 45 to the end of the passage.

Therefore, only the court decision in the second case challenged the notion of being "traditional." Hope this helps!

[andrewb22]

Thanks for the response Poonam! The key word "decisions" makes all the difference in the world between the two answer choices, I see that now and it makes sense why (B) would not be correct. Thanks for the clarification.