【OG24-503题】Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California, as that decision is described in the passage, and the criteria discussed in the highlighted text?_mofa留学圈mofaGRE在线题库系统_GRE在线搜题_GRE题库解析_GRE真题机经_GRE课程_GRE培训机构

最新题目

题目内容

纠错

In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1)the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands— i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws-and set aside or reserved; and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States' acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.

Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California, as that decision is described in the passage, and the criteria discussed in the highlighted text?

Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine. Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria. Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine. Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine. Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.

正确答案： B

参考解析

提交我的解析

文章大意逻辑
文章开篇介绍在1908年的*Winters v. United States*案中，最高法院判定建立Fort Berthold印第安保留地的条约为美国印第安人保留了使用流经或毗邻该保留地水域的权利，虽条约未提及水权，但法院认为政府有此意图。后续判决依据*Winters*案确立了法院认定联邦保留水权的三个标准。接着提到一些美国印第安部落基于传统用水方式也确立了水权，以Rio Grande pueblos为例，其土地虽未正式成为联邦公有土地一部分，但*Winters*原则仍适用。最后指出这种务实做法得到了1963年*Arizona v. California*案的支持，即联邦保留地的创建方式不影响*Winters*原则中标准的应用。 文章类型及逻辑简图
文章类型为总分结构。逻辑简图： *Winters v. United States* (1908): Supreme Court held water rights reservation for American Indians in Fort Berthold Reservation Later decisions: criteria for finding federal water reservation rights land in enclave under federal jurisdiction land formally withdrawn from federal public lands government's intention to reserve water Some American Indian tribes: water rights based on traditional use (e.g., Rio Grande pueblos) *Arizona v. California* (1963): supports pragmatic approach, form of reservation creation doesn't affect *Winters* criteria application 问题类型及做题方法
这是一道细节推断题，通过定位文中对*Arizona v. California*案以及*Winters*原则标准的描述来推断两者关系。定位提示句子为“What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to”。 选项分析
A选项：“*Arizona v. California* abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the *Winters* doctrine.” 文章中没有提及*Arizona v. California*废除了这些标准并建立了一套竞争标准，属于无中生有，所以A选项错误。 B选项：“*Arizona v. California* establishes that the *Winters* doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.” 从文中可知*Arizona v. California*支持了务实做法，使得*Winters*原则适用于更广泛情况，不仅仅局限于之前标准所定义的，该选项符合文意，所以B选项正确。 C选项：“*Arizona v. California* represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the *Winters* doctrine.” 文中并没有表明*Arizona v. California*是唯一的例外，“sole”过于绝对，所以C选项错误。 D选项：“*Arizona v. California* does not refer to the *Winters* doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the *Winters* doctrine.” 与原文不符，原文是*Arizona v. California*支持了*Winters*原则相关的务实做法，所以D选项错误。 E选项：“*Arizona v. California* applies the criteria derived from the *Winters* doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.” 原文未提及只适用于除美国印第安保留地之外的联邦土地，所以E选项错误。

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

还没有人评论,赶快抢个沙发~

做题笔记

参考解析

题目讨论 (如果对题目有任何的疑惑，欢迎在这里提出来，大家会帮你解答的哦~)

请选择错误类型：

请描述一下这个错误：