#17 - Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[Tomars]

I was really confused about what this question was asking during my timed practice. Now that I'm going over it, I realize that this question hinges on my understanding of Canadian courts' current and future conception of property ownership. The question is asking "Which of the following reasons will the courts be less likely to view as compelling, giving the likelihood for gradual recognition of collective ownership as a legitimate legal concept?"

I think I understand why D is right, but I didn't really understand the gist of some of the other answer choices. Would you mind clarifying why wrong answers are wrong and why the right answer is right?

A) In the future, this will actually be a legitimate point because the courts will be more likely to understand property rights within the context of original ownership. If the museum shows that native Canadians are not the original owner, then that might be a good reason to deny ownership to native Canadians.

B) First, the court will be less likely to see written documentation of ownership as a good enough reason for ownership. This is because in the future, they would recognize native Canadians are unlikely to have written documentation despite actual ownership. Additionally, the question is asking specifically about a decision in the museum's favor, so the museum being unable to provide written documentation of ownership would not be relevant to deciding its favor.

C) Similar to the rationale for A. This is actually likely to be seen as a legitimate reason for deciding in the native Canadian's favor.

D) The courts will be less likely to see written documentation of ownership as a good enough reason for ownership. If the museum demonstrates that native Canadians do not have such documentation, this will have less of a bearing on the courts' decision in the future and this reason will not be seen this as a compelling point from the museum.

E) This is likely to be an irrelevant point now or in the future (when the courts will see the concept of private property ownership as inappropriate for all cultural groups). Currently, it probably won't do to simply state that native Canadians do not belong to a group recognizing private property ownership as a legal concept. Native Canadians may still be able to adhere to the requirements under private property ownership even though they do not employ it within their own legal system.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Choice (A), the passage dealt with property that did originate from native communities, so we cannot comment on objects that did not.

Choice (B) The passage did not discuss when the museum is unable to produce written documentation, only when native communities are unable to. We would thus have no reason to assume courts rule in favor of museums when they lack such evidence.

Choice (C) Courts never used this as evidence for why museums should keep certain objects.

Choice (E) makes a few errors. The most obvious to me is that the passage does not comment on tribes that have recently adopted certain legal systems.

Choice (D) this was the correct answer. In the past courts have looked at museums with documentation for objects and tribes without similar documentation and subsequently ruled in favor of the museums. The author argues in the passage that this exact standard for judgement is fading in importance and courts recognize that native communities held property in common and thus documentation takes on less importance.