-
gmat072014
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 11:51 am
Here is a passage
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters flowing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
(5) 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
(10) 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
(15) withdrawn from federal public lands-i.e., withdrawn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
(20) 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
(25) 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
(30) 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ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public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
(35) 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
(40) 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
(45) considered to have become reservations
This totally stumped me...i want to know from other members here if they feel the same and they feel that this passage indeed is a tough one to comprehend.(BTW i happened to google this topic - you will get a wiki result,surprisingly the text in that wiki article is far lucid and simple to comprehend so i am wondering if GMAC recreated this passage.(I am non native English speaker but I have been in US for over 10 years now)I think even a native speaker will find it difficult to comprehend this passage as well...(for the fact that it is poorly written with no coherence and logical flow)
On another note,I happen to find this post on BeattheGMAT which is kind of discouraging...
does anyone have to comment on this?(essentially what it says is that if you cannot comprehend a passage like this then you shouldn't be going to BSchool or take GMAT.
"if your understanding of written english is insufficient for you to comprehend difficult OG passages, then you should take some at least a few months off studying for the test and improve your general comprehension of written english.
this section is called "reading comprehension" for a reason -- there are no quick tricks or statistical guessing methods that will allow you to circumvent the need for good reading comprehension. in other words, you need to get to a level at which you can read -- and understand -- the principal intention of each passage fairly quickly. this doesn't mean you have to be able to understand everything the moment it hits your eyes; it's ok, for instance, if you struggle with technical terms here and there. however, if a passage blows you away so much that you just don't understand it at all, then you may want to step back and ask yourself whether you're ready for this test -- or for business school -- right now.
remember that business school is going to involve A LOT of highly technical reading!
especially if you take any classes that have to do with business-related law -- such as classes dealing with antitrust law, classes dealing with international mergers and acquisitions, etc. -- you're going to have to do a lot of reading related to the law, and, believe me, that reading will be just as complicated and technical as these passages, if not more so. (this is actually the reason why there are so many passages about legislation and court decisions, by the way; once again, gmac is sneaking in skills that are quite directly related to what you'll need in business school, as well as in business itself.) "
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters flowing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
(5) 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
(10) 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
(15) 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
(20) 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
(25) 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
(30) 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
(35) 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
(40) 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
(45) considered to have become reservations
This totally stumped me...i want to know from other members here if they feel the same and they feel that this passage indeed is a tough one to comprehend.(BTW i happened to google this topic - you will get a wiki result,surprisingly the text in that wiki article is far lucid and simple to comprehend so i am wondering if GMAC recreated this passage.(I am non native English speaker but I have been in US for over 10 years now)I think even a native speaker will find it difficult to comprehend this passage as well...(for the fact that it is poorly written with no coherence and logical flow)
On another note,I happen to find this post on BeattheGMAT which is kind of discouraging...
does anyone have to comment on this?(essentially what it says is that if you cannot comprehend a passage like this then you shouldn't be going to BSchool or take GMAT.
"if your understanding of written english is insufficient for you to comprehend difficult OG passages, then you should take some at least a few months off studying for the test and improve your general comprehension of written english.
this section is called "reading comprehension" for a reason -- there are no quick tricks or statistical guessing methods that will allow you to circumvent the need for good reading comprehension. in other words, you need to get to a level at which you can read -- and understand -- the principal intention of each passage fairly quickly. this doesn't mean you have to be able to understand everything the moment it hits your eyes; it's ok, for instance, if you struggle with technical terms here and there. however, if a passage blows you away so much that you just don't understand it at all, then you may want to step back and ask yourself whether you're ready for this test -- or for business school -- right now.
remember that business school is going to involve A LOT of highly technical reading!
especially if you take any classes that have to do with business-related law -- such as classes dealing with antitrust law, classes dealing with international mergers and acquisitions, etc. -- you're going to have to do a lot of reading related to the law, and, believe me, that reading will be just as complicated and technical as these passages, if not more so. (this is actually the reason why there are so many passages about legislation and court decisions, by the way; once again, gmac is sneaking in skills that are quite directly related to what you'll need in business school, as well as in business itself.) "












