- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 7867
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14512)
The correct answer choice is (E)
You must once again match the correct response against the author’s points and arguments. In this
case the question stem references the latter part of the third paragraph, which you have fortunately
just considered in responding to question #25.
Answer choice (A): To contravene means “to come in confl ict with, or to oppose” and thus the
phrase “directly contravene” is much too strong for the author to apply to the court’s ruling. The
author stated that the ruling was “excessively conservative” but that is considerably different than
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because the author indicated that the provincial
court was authorized to rule on property rights, and that in their ruling they chose a conservative path
as far as defi ning what those rights were under the current law.
Answer choice (C): This response is contrary to the passage. The aboriginal claim in the last
paragraph is given as an example of diffi culties groups encounter even after they have established
their claims (lines 40-47). In the 1984 case the court has already granted the claim, and is simply
defi ning the exact parameters of the claim.
Answer choice (D): Do not confuse the different meanings of the word “conservative.” Since
the author stated that the court conformed to the old interpretation of “use,” the only legitimate
interpretation of “conservative” as used in line 57 is in the non-political sense. This answer choice
clearly explicitly refers to politics and political agendas, and there is no information whatsoever that
suggests the author has any information or beliefs about political infl uences on the ruling.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The court understood that the intent was to
protect aboriginal claims, and the court in fact attempted to do so. In the author’s opinion, the court’s
failure was that it used an older defi nition of “use” (lines 51-56), incorrectly assuming that the court
should derive the defi nition from precedent. The author implies that the more recent constitutional
reforms might be interpreted more broadly than the old law, so precedent might not be the best
decision method (lines 56-58).