#13 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[Shaela L. Hayes]

Hi,

Can you please explain why answer choice (D) is correct? I imagine the answer lies in the last paragraph, but after reading it over a few times I still don't see how it plays into the passage as a whole, let alone answers this question. Is it trying to say that the federal government is encouraged to prevent states from taking land traditionally owned by tribes? And thus this question stem is asking how the Native Americans would react to the federal governments no longer being discouraged from preventing the states from taking land owned by tribes?

Thanks!

[atierney]

Hi,

With concept reference, there isn't necessarily going to be one area in particular in which the answer will lie. Thus, to the extent that you looked only in that final paragraph, you probably weren't able to identify the perspective sought here. That is because the answer can more readily be found by viewing the final paragraph in conjunction with the discussion that begins on line 10 and sets up the rest of the passage. Here, the passage discusses how the Supreme Court has exercised its judicial power in a manner that has not been "wholly detrimental" to Native Americans on larger issues, and indeed, beneficial on more minute issues. The final paragraph provides the second of the contributions made by the judicial power (not wholly detrimental) alluded in these introductory remarks. This is how we can be sure that the author views the protections expounded upon in that final paragraph as an expression of judiciary power the Native Americans would find beneficial.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[unfairbear]

Hi,

With concept reference, there isn't necessarily going to be one area in particular in which the answer will lie. Thus, to the extent that you looked only in that final paragraph, you probably weren't able to identify the perspective sought here. That is because the answer can more readily be found by viewing the final paragraph in conjunction with the discussion that begins on line 10 and sets up the rest of the passage. Here, the passage discusses how the Supreme Court has exercised its judicial power in a manner that has not been "wholly detrimental" to Native Americans on larger issues, and indeed, beneficial on more minute issues. The final paragraph provides the second of the contributions made by the judicial power (not wholly detrimental) alluded in these introductory remarks. This is how we can be sure that the author views the protections expounded upon in that final paragraph as an expression of judiciary power the Native Americans would find beneficial.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

with implication questions in general, if there is more evidence that supports a statement then wouldn't that be stronger than one that is less implied? the last paragraph certainly comes from the author's perspective and explicitly states "federal judges are not inclined to view favorably efforts to extend states' powers and jurisdictions because of the direct threat that such expansion poses to the exercise of federal powers."
coupled with:
"the court recognizes that past unfairness to native americans cannot be sanctioned by the force of law."
"despite the accommodating nature of the judicial system, it is worth noting that the power of the SC has been exercised in a manner that has usually been beneficial to Native Americans, at least on minor issues, and has not been wholly detrimental on the larger, more important issues."

the implication is that extending states power can be unfair to native americans but at least equally strong is the implication that extension of states' powers/jurisdictions with respect to native americans would be discouraged by most federal judges---despite legal precedents to the contrary---which can also account for the implication that it is in the interests of native americans as well.

is the key word here "legal precedent"? i would have thought treaties can fall under the broad category of precedent.
i just do not see how D is a stronger implication than E.
there is definitely something I am missing. I think the only way I could have gone with D is if I understood the stem as asking what the author's opinion would be about the effects of extending states' powers/jurisdictions with respect to NA; that makes it more specific to D but broadly speaking, I just cannot see how I can eliminate E.

federal judges in general do not favor expanding state powers/jurisdictions. this is explicitly stated although it is in the context of "providing protection" to native americans from state jurisdictions which is certainly in their interest and actually makes D broader in scope than E.

so with concept reference questions:
despite having partial evidence that directly supports a statement, if that statement has been presented under some qualification or context, then that context supersedes the locality of the evidence. would this be an accurate way of characterizing it?