悉尼大学商学国贸双硕士毕业,现居澳洲,在澳学习生活15+年,从事教育咨询工作超过10年,澳洲政府注册教育顾问,上千成功升学转学签证案例,定期受邀亲自走访澳洲各类学校
您所在的位置: 首页> 新闻列表> 1月GMAT阅读机经:水权.
GMAT逻辑机经能够指引人们在阅读的道路上不再迷茫,这不1月GMAT阅读机经就来为你指明道路,澳际小编就在这寒冬中为大家吹来一股GMAT机经的暖风,为大家分享GMAT阅读机经,希望大家能感受到这股暖意,并把它化为能量,在GMAT考试的道路上勇往直前。
GWD-10-Q25-Q28 N-3-Q20-Q23 N-2-Q23-Q26 G-10-Q25-Q28
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 preserving 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withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal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treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos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 dinition, 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. Therore, 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.
逻辑简图:
1P: (1908)in Winters, supreme court held that the right was reserved by treaty…
Later decisions find …1), 2), 3)….
2P: some Indian tribes also established water rights… For example, RGP…. However,
has not barred application of Winters. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by
AVC…. Therore, rights of P have priority over other citizen’s rights….
第一段:1908 年,在某个例案中,高级法院根据一项关于建立印第安人保留区的 treaty,
规定联邦政府必须保证保留区内印第安人的水权。之后,又作出了详细的规定,规定在以下
三种情况下联邦政府可行使该项权利:1、...2、...3、...
第二段:RG 这样一个印第安地区,虽然不符合以上 1、2 两种情况(情况 3 没有讨论),但
事实上也遵循了 winter doctrine. 因为,尽管没有正式的文件,但 RG 一直都被联邦政府
视为保留区....最后,还有一个 1963 年的法律规定联邦政府设立保留区的方式并不影响到这
种保留区遵循 winter doctrine,因此,最终确定了 RG 的水权。
--------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-10-Q25 N-3-Q20 G-10-Q25:
The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally
withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?
Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to
apply to pueblo lands
Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians
are limited by the Winters doctrine
Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the
traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-10-Q26 N-3-Q21 G-10-Q26:
The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only
criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would
be true?
The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would
not take precedence over those of other citizens.
Reservations established bore 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with
reserved water rights.
Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in
order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-10-Q27 N-3-Q22 G-10-Q27:
According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing
the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters
case.
It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
------------------------------------------------------------------GWD-10-Q28
N-3-Q23 G-10-Q28:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American
Indian tribes
discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government
recognized the water rights of American Indians
point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian
reservations
以上就是关于GMAT机经的全部内容,考生朋友可以有选择的看看,最后需要提醒各位的是,GMAT机经虽然会对我们解题有所帮助,但是在考场中即使题目很像也要避免秒选,最后祝大家都能考出好成绩。
Amy GUO 经验: 16年 案例:4272 擅长:美国,澳洲,亚洲,欧洲
本网站(www.aoji.cn,刊载的所有内容,访问者可将本网站提供的内容或服务用于个人学习、研究或欣赏,以及其他非商业性或非盈利性用途,但同时应遵守著作权法及其他相关法律规定,不得侵犯本网站及相关权利人的合法权利。除此以外,将本网站任何内容或服务用于其他用途时,须征得本网站及相关权利人的书面许可,并支付报酬。
本网站内容原作者如不愿意在本网站刊登内容,请及时通知本站,予以删除。