by bbirdwell Thu Sep 09, 2010 9:52 am
Though the author does leads us to believe that he/she sides with aboriginal people in the last paragraph ("regrettably....one hopes..."), never does the author insist that the "definition of rights needs to be revised," as (D) says. The dilemma throughout the passage is inconsistent "recognition" of rights and poor "application" of existing reforms -- not "definition" of what the rights are. Look at paragraph 2. The definitions are given, and then a discussion of applying those definitions follows, not one of re-defining them.
I understand the appeal of D because it seems to side with the aboriginals. However, C is a better answer because the "passage as a whole" is definitely more concerned with detailing the difficulties associated with granting aboriginal rights rather than advocating for a certain kind of action on aboriginals' behalf.