PrepTest 159, Section 4, Question 17
The following passage was adapted from an article(439 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe International Covenant(15 more words not shown)
- BThe Maya's lawsuit(20 more words not shown)
- CTo acquire rights(20 more words not shown)
- DThe high court(16 more words not shown)
- EInternational law concerning(14 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The Australian example gives us a concrete connection to work with. Its high court recognized common-law indigenous rights and, in doing so, cited obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That supports an inference about the covenant's relevance, without telling us every detail of the case or the Maya's requested remedy.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
If the court used obligations under the covenant in recognizing indigenous rights, the covenant contains material relevant to that issue. We don't need its complete wording to infer that connection; the described use of it supplies the evidence.
- B
No earlier ruling doesn't mean no earlier lawsuit. An action could have been filed without producing a ruling on the issue. But the text doesn't tell us that such an action occurred either, so we cannot establish that this wasn't the first.
- C
The Maya assert land and resource rights and challenge logging. That doesn't necessarily mean seeking full ownership. A right to prevent a particular use and ownership of every aspect of the land are different claims.
- D
We know the Australian court drew on international law. We aren't told that it also relied on another common-law country's precedent. Those are distinct sources of support.
- E
The discussion doesn't accuse non-common-law jurisdictions of misrepresenting international law. It describes sources supporting recognition, not a pattern of distortion by other legal systems.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.