Dear A2 team,
下面這篇閱讀看過後, 還是不太清楚正確答案為什麼正確@@ 大概是我遇過對我來說也滿難的文章...
除了主旨題有辦法推出來之外, 其它的就是推不太出來...
想拜託幫忙分析正確答案為什麼正確! 感激不盡!!
另外多提供的答案是我選錯的.
GWD-10-Q25-Q28
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.
Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.
GWD-10-Q25 N-3-Q20 G-10-Q25:
The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.
以相關性來看, 整個第二段在討論water rights reservation是否可以套用在Rio Grande pueblos
第一段已經定義出三種條款會有water rights reservation的適用, 第二段主要應該是再看三種條款的第二條, withdrawn the pueblos from public lands
但是E選項的主軸是在討論claim jurisdiction, 並非是第二條狀況, 概念上比較像第一條
定位句 the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands, 既然如此就沒有適用第二種條款, 因為第二條說the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands , 但是重點是我標粗體部分, 作者認為仍然不會阻礙Winters法條的適用, 所以A選項才點出了爭點, 到底Winters法條能否用在 pueblos 的case上
GWD-10-Q26 N-3-Q21 G-10-Q26:
The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
第二段說到 the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.
代表Rio Grande pueblos 並沒有適用在Winters法條
E選項無法推論出有命令語氣的 have to mention water rights , 因為第一段只說到Although this treaty did not mention water rights
另外後面的in order to表達目的關係也推論不出
GWD-10-Q27 N-3-Q22 G-10-Q27:
According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless.
很明顯的定位句說到the treaty did not mention water rights
A選項的rescind the treaty並沒有提到, 另外注意give rise to表達因果關係, 文章也沒提到rescind the treaty會導致Winters case出現
下面這篇閱讀看過後, 還是不太清楚正確答案為什麼正確@@ 大概是我遇過對我來說也滿難的文章...
除了主旨題有辦法推出來之外, 其它的就是推不太出來...
想拜託幫忙分析正確答案為什麼正確! 感激不盡!!
另外多提供的答案是我選錯的.
GWD-10-Q25-Q28
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.
Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.
GWD-10-Q25 N-3-Q20 G-10-Q25:
The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine.
以相關性來看, 整個第二段在討論water rights reservation是否可以套用在Rio Grande pueblos
第一段已經定義出三種條款會有water rights reservation的適用, 第二段主要應該是再看三種條款的第二條, withdrawn the pueblos from public lands
但是E選項的主軸是在討論claim jurisdiction, 並非是第二條狀況, 概念上比較像第一條
定位句 the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands, 既然如此就沒有適用第二種條款, 因為第二條說the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands , 但是重點是我標粗體部分, 作者認為仍然不會阻礙Winters法條的適用, 所以A選項才點出了爭點, 到底Winters法條能否用在 pueblos 的case上
GWD-10-Q26 N-3-Q21 G-10-Q26:
The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
第二段說到 the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations.
代表Rio Grande pueblos 並沒有適用在Winters法條
E選項無法推論出有命令語氣的 have to mention water rights , 因為第一段只說到Although this treaty did not mention water rights
另外後面的in order to表達目的關係也推論不出
GWD-10-Q27 N-3-Q22 G-10-Q27:
According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless.
很明顯的定位句說到the treaty did not mention water rights
A選項的rescind the treaty並沒有提到, 另外注意give rise to表達因果關係, 文章也沒提到rescind the treaty會導致Winters case出現
