RC Drill Set 1, Question 7
In a series of presidential proclamations between 1902(466 more words not shown)
The passage mentions which one(14 more words not shown)
- AThe land to(12 more words not shown)
- BThe land to(12 more words not shown)
- CNative Alaskan use(22 more words not shown)
- DIndividual Native Alaskans(15 more words not shown)
- EIndividual Native Alaskans(19 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
We need a reason for rejection that the account actually mentions. The third paragraph lists the barriers, including the mismatch between the government's ownership model and Native use and ownership. A rule that merely sounds plausible isn't enough.
Working the answers
- A
Previous personal use was part of qualifying for an allotment, not a stated reason for rejecting one.
- B
The account focuses on the Tongass, but it doesn't state that being outside the forest was grounds for rejection.
- CCorrect
Applications were rejected because Native use and ownership differed from the European model of personally held property (paragraph 3). This directly identifies the stated mismatch.
- D
No one-parcel limit or rejection for seeking multiple parcels is mentioned. The acreage limit doesn't establish a separate parcel-count rule.
- E
We aren't told that applications by individuals from different clans for joint ownership of the same parcel caused rejections. The general discussion of family and clan ownership doesn't establish this particular situation.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.