Q25

[Nina]

i don't quite get why A is the correct answer. how about D?

Thanks a lot!

[ohthatpatrick]

The subject matter for this question begins on line 47.

In a 1984 case, an aboriginal group claimed that its right to its property should be interpreted as full ownership, including the right so sell the land or the land's resources.

The provincial court said "Nope, you only have the right to use the land, not to sell it or its resources."

To this, our author says "The provincial court's ruling was excessively conservative in its assessment of current law."

Translation? Our author disagrees with the ruling. He thinks that the aboriginal group, under current law, SHOULD have the right to sell its land or the land's resources.

Q25 wants us to pick an answer that would support that idea.

(A) says that other courts interpreted "use" of land to include the sale of the land or its resources. This makes the author seem correct and makes the provincial court seem "excessively conservative". The provincial court isn't interpreting current law the way other Ontario courts have been interpreting it.

(D) is pretty neutral as to whether or not the provincial court was being conservative by interpreting "use" to NOT include selling the land or its resources. The fact that other groups pursued land claims in other provinces doesn't tell us the key info we need: "How are other provinces/courts interpreting the current law? Are they granting the right to sell the land or not?"

== other answers ==

(B) The aftermath of the ruling doesn't help us judge whether the ruling was "excessively conservative". To judge that, we need to know if this provincial court ruled differently or similarly to other courts.

(C) This isn't specific enough to go in either direction, but if anything I feel that it weakens the author's claim. It starts to imply that other courts also might interpret "use" as "you can use the land, not sell it".

(E) Again, this doesn't help us judge whether the actual ruling was consistent with other interpretations of current law or whether it was "excessively conservative".

Hope this helps.

[luke111234]

Were we supposed to assume that conservative means the political ideology? Because I thought it meant conservative in the sense that the court was applying prior precedent which resulted in me picking answer C

[ohthatpatrick]

No we don’t mean conservative as in political ideology. We mean “conservative” as in, more limited, more restricted, more cautious.

If you were attempting a Ninja Warrior obstacle course and just ran full steam at the first obstacle, that would be rash / impetuous.

If you really thought about your actions ahead of time and took a more measured, deliberate pace, that would be conservative / circumspect.

In the context of legal precedents, a conservative ruling would be one that accords with the prior precedent. A liberal ruling would be a judge interpreting something new, something beyond what happened before.

It sounds like you have the right idea there; you’re just not answering the question posed.

Lines 56-58 are saying that the court was “excessively” conservative. It relied TOO MUCH on the “previously recognized” definition of land ownership.

We want an answer choice that affirms what the author is saying, which is something NEGATIVE about the provincial court’s ruling.

(C) sounds more like it’s defending the provincial court’s ruling. “Hey, author, back off. OTHER rulings have ALSO cited this distinction between right to use and right to sell.”

We want an answer choice that agrees with the author and says, “Hey, Provincial Court, don’t be a dork. You’re being excessively conservative. ‘ownership of land’ means more than just ‘right to use’.”

And (A) sounds the most like that.

Hope this helps.