Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 11:58 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 11:58

Close

GRE Prep Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28620
Own Kudos [?]: 33099 [8]
Given Kudos: 25172
Send PM
GRE Prep Club Team Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 2507
Own Kudos [?]: 3246 [0]
Given Kudos: 1051
GPA: 3.39
Send PM
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 28620
Own Kudos [?]: 33099 [3]
Given Kudos: 25172
Send PM
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Aug 2022
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United [#permalink]
1
Expert Reply
Carcass wrote:
1.The author of the passage is primarily concerned with


This is a primary purpose question, so it's going to work like every other question of that type.

Remember 2 things about correct answers to Main Idea / Primary Purpose questions:
1/ EVERYTHING IN the answer must ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE PASSAGE
2/ The answer doesn't have to—and SHOULDN'T—get EVERY fact from the passage!

#1 is the most basic thing about all correct answers on this exam (or on any other standardized test): They can't lie, and they can't say anything that's entirely unsupported.

#2 just comes from the literal meaning of "PRIMARY", "MAIN", "PRINCIPAL", or whatever equivalent word appears in the question.
All of these words imply that there is other content that is SECONDARY, or PERIPHERAL (in contrast to "primary" / "main"). An answer choice that gives the PRIMARY purpose won't contain that information, so, you should expect to leave out at least some details from the passage.

The basic skeleton of stuff in the passage is
• Blue Clark pointed out something about the 1903 Lone Wolf decision....
• ... but didn't say anything about that decision's longer-term effects.
• Some people have said that those were already underway by 1871 (...if this were true then these things could not have been effects of the LW decision).
• But no, actually the LW decision "ended an era" (and therefore started another era). The only possible meaning of this part, given everything else above, is that the LW decision DID actually set in motion the longer-term changes described.

So basically there's ONE Supreme Court decision, and then some back-and-forth about its long-term effects (and whether those observations were, in fact, long-term effects of that specific court decision).


Let's look at the choices—keeping in mind that anything that isn't supported by the text makes an answer WRONG, even if everything else in that answer choice is perfectly well supported.


Quote:
A. identifying similarities in two different theories


There are two different schools of thought about the long-term changes that the passage describes: one asserting that these changes began in 1903 with the LW decision, and another saying that they had actually begun back in 1871.
These are fundamentally contrasting ideas. The passage does not actually describe any significant points of similarity between these points of view, so A is wrong.

(Also, using the word "theories"—normally reserved for an internally consistent set of hypotheses—for 2 single ideas isn't really accurate either. Both the GRE and the GMAT are very precise about these choices of nouns!)


Quote:
B. evaluating a work of scholarship


The only work of scholarship that the passage mentions is Blue Clark's—which is mentioned only in passing. The main debate in the passage is between two different hypothesized timelines for an effect that Blue Clark completely neglected to address at all! So B is wrong.



Quote:
C. analyzing the significance of a historical event


With the "historical event" here representing the 1903 LW decision, this choice properly describes everything listed above.

• Blue Clark's study, though noted only in transition to a discussion of something he DIDN'T talk about, is still about the 1903 LW decision and its causes and effects;

• A longer-term effect is then mentioned, followed by debating points of view on whether that effect resulted from the 1903 LW decision.
—If something resulted from the LW decision, that's definitely a point about the significance of the LW decisoin.
—If something did NOT result from the LW decision, that's ALSO a point about the significance of the LW decision.

So, all of the major elements of the passage are, indeed, about the significance of that decision. C is the correct answer.



Quote:
D. debunking a revisionist interpretation


A "revisionist interpretation" would reject something that's currently believed (widely, by consensus, etc... enough to be 'accepted', basically), and replace that idea with something different and new that's purportedly more accurate than the old belief.

"Debunking" a revisionist interpretation would mean defeating the NEW interpretation as a possibility—and, therefore, re-instituting the old one (unless there are two or more proposed revisionist interpretations, in which case debunking one of them could still leave others on the table in addition to the original set of beliefs/conclusions.)

Nothing here is described as an already accepted belief/explanation, though.
Nor is anything described as a new, updated set of points that could replace the original, resulting in a better understanding.

In other words, there's no 'original/current/accepted interpretation' and there's no 'revisionist interpretation'. D is wrong.


Quote:
E. exploring the relationship between law and social reality


This is way way way way WAY too general. The passage is about whether exactly one effect was or wasn't a result of exactly one court case.

The idea that ONE debate about ONE set of specifics could possibly explore any sort of general between massive constructs as varied as 'the law' or 'social reality' is just laughable. You should be able to eliminate this answer choice within a few seconds.



It's C.
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Aug 2022
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United [#permalink]
1
Expert Reply
Quote:
2. According to the passage, which of the following was true of relations between the federal government and Native American tribes?


"According to the passage" —> The correct answer should restate something from the text of the passage. As usual with RC detail questions, there will be changes in at least some specific words used to state the fact that ends up being reproduced in the correct answer; if you see all of the exact same specific nouns, you should very strongly suspect trouble.


The question asks about relations between the US Federal government and Indian tribes (IN GENERAL). We need to go find the purple thing.

• The stuff at the start of the passage isn't general enough. It's only about the government's interactions with three specific tribes, so it doesn't necessarily say anything the government did with/about tribes in general.

shortly after Lone Wolf, the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements with Indian tribes as a prerequisite for the implementation of federal Indian policy (FACT 1) This is the kind of generalization we want, as it just says "Indian tribes" (implying 'in general' just as the question does).

• In 1871 ... Congress abolished the making of treaties with Native American tribes FACT 2 Also the right level of general statement.

the federal government continued to negotiate formal tribal agreements past the turn of the century (= 1900), treating these documents [...] as legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress. FACT 3 Another generalization on the right level.

The correct answer should PRECISELY RESTATE some of this stuff.



Quote:
A. Some Native American tribes approved of the congressional action of 1871 because it simplified their dealings with the federal government.


• Not one of the 3 facts above

• The passage says nothing about any tribal reactions to the 1871 action.

No good.



Quote:
B. Some Native American tribes were more eager to negotiate treaties with the United States after the Lone Wolf decision.


• Not one of the 3 facts above

• The last sentence contradicts this idea in two ways. First, after the LW decision it became impossible for any such negotiations to take place. Second, by that point tribal consent had become an 'empty formality'—i.e., done without any enthusiasm or real participation at all (so basically the exact polar opposite of 'eager').

Nope.




Quote:
C. Prior to the Lone Wolf decision, the Supreme Court was reluctant to hear cases involving agreements negotiated between Congress and Native American tribes.


• Not one of the 3 facts above

• Exactly ONE Supreme Court case is mentioned anywhere in the passage (the 1903 Lone Wolf case). There is nothing at all about other cases or the Court's approach to and/or the justices' feelings about them.

It's a no to this one.



Quote:
D. Prior to 1871, the federal government sometimes negotiated treaties with Native American tribes.


According to the facts above, this type of treaty-making was definitely happening at some point. There are two points of view on when it STOPPED: either at the official abolition in 1871, or else when the LW decision was handed down in 1903.
In both of these situations, the treaty-making would have been going on before the earlier date (1871), so, D is supported.


Quote:
E. Following 1871, the House exercised more power than did the Senate in the government’s dealings with Native American tribe


The passage mentions that there was a debate over whether the House or the Senate should exercise more power with regard to these affairs, but never affirmatively says at any point that either of the two DID exercise more power than the other.

Not supported.



It's D.
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Aug 2022
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United [#permalink]
2
Expert Reply
Quote:
3. As an element in the argument presented by the author of the passage, the reference to Blue Clark’s study of the Lone Wolf case serves primarily to


Basically, "Why is the Blue Clark study mentioned?" Remember—As is the case for any other detail-based question, the answers to questions like this one still have to be supported EXPLICITLY by WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE TEXT!
In other words, a question that asks for the 'purpose' or 'role' of a detail is NOT any more vague, and does NOT allow any more latitude for departing from the actual content of the text, than any other type of detail-based question.


With that said:

Why is the Blue Clark study mentioned? Well... What happens directly before or after it?
• Directly before it, we just have the facts of the 1903 Supreme Court Lone Wolf decision. Nothing about Blue Clark here.
• Directly after it, the author moves the discussion into something that Blue Clark DIDN'T MENTION. That detail goes on to become the focal point of the debate whose two sides take up the entire rest of the passage.

The purpose of the brief mention of Blue Clark's study, then, is the latter thing here: The author uses the Blue Clark study as a transition device to move the discussion into a point that B.C. DIDN'T mention—which becomes the center of the main debate.


Quote:
A. point out that this episode in Native American history has received inadequate attention from scholars


No scholars are mentioned besides Blue Clark, so this choice is entirely unsupported. (There's also a mention of "many commentators", who may or may not be scholars? 🤷🏽‍♀️)



Quote:
B. support the contention of the author of the passage that the Lone Wolf decision had a greater long-term impact than did the congressional action of 1871


The only aspect of either impact that's discussed here is which of those two actions—the legislative action in 1871 or the court decision in 1903—caused THE ONE AND ONLY EFFECT the passage mentions or tries to explain.

For this choice to be true, we would need to have an exhaustive enumeration of ALL the non-negligible effects of BOTH of these, so that we could sum up their aggregate 'impacts' and judge which would be greater overall. No way.



Quote:
C. challenge the validity of the Supreme Court’s decision confirming the unlimited unilateral power of Congress in Native American affairs


Nobody questions the Court's decision. According to the passage, Blue Clark "emphasizes" that decision—and the passage author agrees that this is a "proper" emphasis.

This choice is explicitly WRONG.




Quote:
D. refute the argument of commentators who regard the congressional action of 1871 as the end of the era of formal negotiation between the federal government and Native American tribes


This would be one of the two possible outcomes of the debate. Those outcomes aren't discussed until the end of the passage.

The B.C. study is just used as a set-up for the long-term result whose origins will become the center of the debate. This choice can't be supported at that point; the debate itself still has to be set up (i.e., descriptions of the opposing sides have to be given), and then it becomes possible for one side to be shown to be the winner.

So, not supported.



Quote:
E. introduce a view about the Lone Wolf decision that the author will expand upon


Transition into an idea = INTRODUCE an idea.

Expand on it later —> Well, sure: it becomes the central focal point of the debate that occupies the rest of the passage. This answer is the winner for sure.
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Aug 2022
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United [#permalink]
1
Expert Reply
Quote:
4. According to the passage, which of the following resulted from the Lone Wolf decision?


No fluff; no "imply"/"infer"/"suggest". This problem just calls for you to recognize a restatement of factual information from the passage in one of the answer choices.


The passage says that the "far-reaching effect" of the LW decision was that

the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements with Indian tribes as a prerequisite for the implementation of federal Indian policy


Also, the explicit direct result of the LW decision is in the very last sentence:

The Lone Wolf decision ended this era of formal negotiation (of treaties with Indian tribes and finally did away with what had increasingly become the empty formality of obtaining tribal consent.

This statement doesn't add any value to the first one (and, moreover, omits a couple of key details—such as WHY was the government negotiating treaties? In order to do WHAT?—that ARE given in the first one. So... let's just look for a re-statement of the first (purple-colored) statement.


That's this answer choice, literally word-for-word(!!):

Quote:
C. The federal government no longer needed to conclude a formal agreement with a Native American tribe in order to carry out policy decisions that affected the tribe.


So C is correct.




OTHER CHOICES:


Quote:
A. The Supreme Court took on a greater role in Native American affairs.


Absolutely nothing done by the Supreme Court other than the 1903 LW decision is discussed anywhere, so any other statement about the Court is entirely unsupported.



Quote:
B. Native American tribes lost their legal standing as sovereign nations in their dealings with the federal government, but their ownership of tribal lands was confirmed.


The first part is just unsupported (the tribes lost their leverage to negotiate treaties with the government before any of these actions could be taken with their lands).
The second actually contradicts the passage: Not only was tribal ownership of land NOT confirmed, but, in fact, the Federal government gained the ability to just grab it and open it up to other groups without having to negotiate with the tribe currently occupying the land at all!



Quote:
D. The federal government began to appropriate tribal lands for distribution to non-Indian settlers.


Contradicts the passage.

According to the beginning part, the tribes took the 1903 LW decision to the Supreme Court in an effort to STOP the government from doing exactly this—meaning that it had already been happening prior to that date.


Quote:
E. Native American tribes were no longer able to challenge congressional actions by appealing to the Supreme Court.


The leverage that the tribes lost wasn't the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court; it was the requirement for a treaty signed by both the tribe and the US government before policy could be implemented that would affect the tribe.
This choice is unsupported.
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Aug 2022
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United [#permalink]
1
Expert Reply
Quote:
5. According to the passage, the congressional action of 1871 had which of the following effects?


"According to the passage" again. No frills, we just want a restatement of factual information that is
• EXPLICITLY IN the passage,
• actually ABOUT the EFFECTS of the 1871 action. (The ACTUAL effects, not the theoretical and/or intended ones.)

The passage says:
Congress abolished the making of treaties with Native American tribes. But in reality the federal government continued to negotiate formal tribal agreements past the turn of the century, treating these documents not as treaties with sovereign nations requiring ratification by the Senate but simply as legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress


In other words:

Congress abolished the need to make treaties with tribes, IN THEORY / ON PAPER.
(The immediately following "But in reality..." is a giveaway that this WILL NOT end up being something that actually happened in the real world.)

But in reality the federal government continued to make the same kinds of treaties.
Sure enough, a direct contradiction of the former line.

treating these documents [...] simply as legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress
This is what ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
The correct answer should be a restatement of THIS SINGLE FACT. The first two statements won't figure into the answer, since they're just "This thing was SUPPOSED to happen" and then "But it didn't."


Quote:
(A) Native American tribal agreements were treated as legislation that had to be passed by both houses of Congress.


This is it, word for word. Winner.

The other statements are all totally unsupported pieces of randomness.
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Aug 2022
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Send PM
In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United [#permalink]
1
Expert Reply
Quote:
6. According to the passage, in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock the Supreme Court decided that


Aaaaanndd it's one last "According to the passage" question to close out the party before we send everybody home.

Once again, we just have to find what the passage ACTUALLY SAYS about what the Court decided in the 1903 LW case, and then go hunting in the answer choices for a RESTATEMENT of the SAME factual information (either some or all of it, depending on how much there is to work with).

OK.
What did the Court actually decide?:
[The Court] rejected the efforts of three Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlement without tribal consent.

The highlights essentially act as a 'double negative'. Rejecting an attempt to prevent something is the same as allowing it to continue happening.

So the correct answer should say, in some other choice of words, that the Court
decided to KEEP ALLOWING the opening of tribal lands to settlement by other groups without consent from the tribes (that were currently on the land).




Without question, that's this choice:
Quote:
(B) Congress had the power to allow outsiders to settle on lands occupied by a Native American tribe without obtaining permission from that tribe



Choices A, D, and E are entirely irrelevant to the court decision and are not mentioned anywhere close to the right neighborhood of the passage.


The only other choice worth specifically noting here is this one...
Quote:
(C) Congress had exceeded its authority in attempting to exercise sole power over native American affairs

...because it's the OPPOSITE of correct. The Court specifically allowed Congress to keep doing what it had been doing without tribal consent, so, in other words, acting alone. I.e., the court handed down a decision saying that this exercise of power WAS WITHIN (= did NOT exceed) the scope of Congress's proper authority.
Prep Club for GRE Bot
[#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Instructor
218 posts
GRE Instructor
1029 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne