by giladedelman Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:03 pm
Thanks for posting.
This question is a good example of how important it is to pause during your initial read and ask yourself these kinds of questions: what was the point of that paragraph? Why is the author discussing this case? What is that an example of?
To that end, it's essential to pick up on structural clues. The second paragraph begins with the phrase, "Property law, for example ..." When you see "for example," you have to ask yourself, okay, what is this an example of? The previous sentence told us that "In cases where standing can be achieved, however, common law may provide a basis for some Native American claims against archaeologists and museums." So the example being introduced must be an example of common law providing a basis for Native American claims!
Once we realize that, it becomes pretty obvious that (A) is correct. (You do seem to be misreading the example of Charrier v. Bell. The court ruled that a particular doctrine of common law does not apply to objects buried with the deceased; this ruling actually helps Native Americans. So it's not that common law doesn't apply, it's that it applies in a certain way.)
(B) is basically the opposite of (A). The point of the paragraph is to illustrate how common law can help Native Americans who have standing, not to illustrate difficulties.
(C) doesn't even get mentioned until the third paragraph.
(D) is out because the passage never actually makes this contention.
(E) is too extreme: the passage doesn't say property law is applicable in most disinterment cases, just some.
Does that answer your question?