GMAT Question of the Day: Reading Comprehension

The United States Supreme Court has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations. Many of the Court’s decisions have been products of political compromise that looked more to the temper of the times than to enduring principles of law. But accommodation is part of the judicial system in the United States, and judicial decisions must be assessed with this fact in mind.
Despite the “accommodating” nature of the judicial system, it is worth noting that the power of the Supreme Court has been exercised in a manner that has usually been beneficial to Native Americans, at least on minor issues and has not been wholly detrimental on the larger, more important issues. Certainly there have been decisions that cast doubt on the validity of this assertion. Some critics point to the patronizing tone of many Court opinions and the apparent rejection of Native American values as important points to consider when reviewing a case. However, the validity of the assertion can be illustrated by reference to two important contributions that have resulted from the exercise of judicial power.

First the Court has created rules of judicial construction that in general favor the rights of Native American litigants. The Court’s attitude has been conditioned by recognition of the distinct disadvantages Native Americans faced when dealing with settlers in the past. Treaties were inevitably written in English for the benefit of their authors, whereas tribal leaders were accustomed to making treaties without any written account, on the strength of mutual promises sealed by religious commitment and individual integrity. The written treaties were often broken and Native Americans were confronted with fraud and political and military aggression. The Court recognizes that past unfairness to Native Americans cannot be sanctioned by the force of law. Therefore, ambiguities in treaties are to be interpreted in favor of the Native American claimants, treaties are to be interpreted as the Native Americans would have understood them and, under the reserved rights doctrine, treaties reserve to Native Americans all rights that have not been specifically granted away in other treaties.

A second achievement of the judicial system is the protection that has been provided against encroachment by the states into tribal affairs. Federal judges are not inclined to view favorably efforts to extend states powers and jurisdictions because of the direct threat that such expansion poses to the exercise of federal powers. In the absence of a federal statute directly and clearly allocating a function to the states, federal judges are inclined to reserve for the federal government—and the tribal governments under its charge—all those powers and rights they can be said to have possessed historically.

1) According to the passage, one reason why the United States Supreme Court “has not always resolved legal issues of concern to Native Americans in a manner that has pleased the Indian nations” (lines 1-4) is that
(A) Native Americans have been prevented from presenting their concerns persuasively
(B) the Court has failed to recognize that the Indian nations’ concerns are different from those of other groups or from those of the federal government
(C) the Court has been reluctant to curtail the powers of the federal government
(D) Native Americans faced distinct disadvantages in dealing with settlers in the past
(E) the Court has made political compromises in deciding some cases

2) It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme Court decision that
(A) demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important
(B) protected the rights of the states in conflicts with the federal government
(C) demonstrated recognition of the unfair treatment Native Americans received in the past
(D) reflected consideration of the hardships suffered by Native Americans because of unfair treaties
(E) prevented repetition of inequities experienced by Native Americans in the past

3) It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States “accommodating” (line 10) primarily in order to
(A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case

4) The author’s attitude toward the United States Supreme Court’s resolution of legal issues of concern to Native Americans can best be described as one of
(A) wholehearted endorsement
(B) restrained appreciation
(C) detached objectivity
(D) cautious opposition
(E) suppressed exasperation

5) It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states’ powers and jurisdictions with respect to Native American affairs would be
(A) possible only with the consent of the Indian nations
(B) favorably viewed by the United States Supreme Court
(C) in the best interests of both state and federal governments
(D) detrimental to the interests of Native Americans
(E) discouraged by most federal judges in spite of legal precedents supporting the extension

6) The author’s primary purpose is to
(A) contrast opposing views
(B) reevaluate traditional beliefs
(C) reconcile divergent opinions
(D) assess the claims made by disputants
(E) provide evidence to support a contention

7) It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of Native Americans to have been
(A) irreproachable on legal grounds
(B) reasonably supportive in most situations
(C) guided by enduring principles of law
(D) misguided but generally harmless
(E) harmful only in a few minor cases