Q23

[mrudula_2005]

I did pick E and I do see how the author has a definitively negative attitude towards that, but based on the answer to 24, doesn't the author also have a negative attitude towards D as well? He does, after all, state that "this requirement makes it difficult for aboriginal societies..." which is not exactly a non-negative attitude.

Thanks in advance for your help!

[giladedelman]

Very interesting question!

Let's look at this question in a vacuum first. The author says that the requirement makes things difficult. Does that mean he has a negative attitude toward it? Not necessarily. The fact that something is "difficult" for a particular group doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

That said, I see your point about the answer to question 24 seeming to also support answer (D) of question 23. If we can infer that the author thinks oral tradition should sometimes be considered legal documentation, then can't we infer that he or she has a negative attitude toward the requirement that indigenous people require documentation?

... No! At most, we can say that the author seems to object to the interpretation of the requirement -- that is, to the fact that it doesn't count oral tradition as legal documentation. However, that's not the same thing as objecting to the requirement of documentation in the first place.

Do you see my point?

[mrudula_2005]

Very interesting question!

Let's look at this question in a vacuum first. The author says that the requirement makes things difficult. Does that mean he has a negative attitude toward it? Not necessarily. The fact that something is "difficult" for a particular group doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

That said, I see your point about the answer to question 24 seeming to also support answer (D) of question 23. If we can infer that the author thinks oral tradition should sometimes be considered legal documentation, then can't we infer that he or she has a negative attitude toward the requirement that indigenous people require documentation?

... No! At most, we can say that the author seems to object to the interpretation of the requirement -- that is, to the fact that it doesn't count oral tradition as legal documentation. However, that's not the same thing as objecting to the requirement of documentation in the first place.

Do you see my point?

thank you, yes I do...great! that was exactly what I thought would be the reason but I wanted to make sure. Thanks so much for confirming and clarifying!

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone explain to me why (B) is wrong??
I referred to lines 23-25: "But difficulties arise in applying these broadly conceived rights"; 27-28: "...the exact legal meaning of "indigenous" is extremeley difficult to interpret"; 46-47: "...there remains the problem of interpreting the meaning of that "ownership."

I really think that the author provides the most evidence for the two words (second paragraph = indigenous, third paragraph = ownership). Plus, the correct answer is (E) which touches on the definition of "ownership", but the same amount of evidence is devoted to the definition of "indigenous"... am I missing something?

Is it again because of the whole "negative attitude" that is included in the question stem? The fact that the author believes there are difficulties arising by applying such terms does not necessarily mean that he has a "negative attitude" toward it?? I just feel like the whole fact about how the author talks about this difficulty and explicitly starts the last sentence of the final paragraph by saying "Regrettably" doesn't necessarily mean that the author has a negative attitude toward it. I mean, clearly he doesn't have a positive one; if he did, he wouldn't have rambled on about this whole topic in the first place.

I would really appreciate anyone's help right now!

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

That's right, it's because we need support for the idea that the author has a negative attitude towards it. But just because you say something is difficult doesn't mean you think that's a bad thing. So the passage doesn't indicate that the author has a negative attitude towards these difficulties; it just indicates that the author is aware of them.

On the other hand, the author plainly has negative feelings for the 1984 court ruling: he or she calls it "excessively conservative" and refers to the consequences as being regrettable.

Does that answer your question?

[LSAT-Chang]

That's right, it's because we need support for the idea that the author has a negative attitude towards it. But just because you say something is difficult doesn't mean you think that's a bad thing. So the passage doesn't indicate that the author has a negative attitude towards these difficulties; it just indicates that the author is aware of them.

On the other hand, the author plainly has negative feelings for the 1984 court ruling: he or she calls it "excessively conservative" and refers to the consequences as being regrettable.

Does that answer your question?

Yes! I didn't realize the author was talking about the 1984 court ruling specifically as "regrettable" until I read it again. Thanks so much for your help!!

[huskybins]

I almost chose E until found there might be an issue of incorrect description of fact. You may tell from lines 45-46 that it is an issue of "interpretation" of ownership rather than "definition" thereof imposed by the provincial court. Anyone notices this difference and would like to offer your keen thought? Thanks in advance.

That's right, it's because we need support for the idea that the author has a negative attitude towards it. But just because you say something is difficult doesn't mean you think that's a bad thing. So the passage doesn't indicate that the author has a negative attitude towards these difficulties; it just indicates that the author is aware of them.

On the other hand, the author plainly has negative feelings for the 1984 court ruling: he or she calls it "excessively conservative" and refers to the consequences as being regrettable.

Does that answer your question?