In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts of three Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlement without tribal consent. In his study of the Lone Wolf case, Blue Clark properly emphasizes the Court's assertion of a virtually unlimited unilateral power of Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) over Native American affairs. But he fails to note the decision's more far-reaching impact: shortly after Lone Wolf, the federal government totally abandoned negotiation and execution of formal written agreements with Indian tribes as a prerequisite for the implementation of federal Indian policy. Many commentators believe that this change had already occurred in 1871 when—following a dispute between the House and the Senate over which chamber should enjoy primacy in Indian affairs—Congress abolished the making of treaties with Native American tribes. But in reality the federal government continued to negotiate formal tribal agreements past the turn of the century, treating these documents not as treaties with sovereign nations requiring ratification by the Senate but simply as legislation to be passed by both houses of Congress. The Lone Wolf decision ended this era of formal negotiation and finally did away with what had increasingly become the empty formality of obtaining tribal consent.
The author of the passage is primarily concerned with
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
Text from Passage | Analysis |
---|---|
In its 1903 decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United States Supreme Court rejected the efforts of three Native American tribes to prevent the opening of tribal lands to non-Indian settlement without tribal consent. | What it says: In 1903, the Supreme Court ruled against Native American tribes who wanted to stop their land from being opened to non-Native settlers without the tribes' permission. What it does: Introduces a specific historical case and its basic outcome Source/Type: Historical fact about a court decision Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation Visualization: Think of it like: 3 tribes said "No, you can't open our land to settlers" → Supreme Court said "Yes, we can" Reading Strategy Insight: This is a clean, factual opening. Don't overthink - just absorb the basic setup. What We Know So Far: A 1903 court case where tribes lost a land dispute What We Don't Know Yet: Why this case matters, what the broader implications were |
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't present two different theories to compare
- The author presents one main argument (about Lone Wolf's significance) against a common misconception, not similarities between theories
- The focus is on historical impact, not theoretical comparison
Why It's Wrong:
- While the author mentions Blue Clark's work, this is only a small part of the passage
- The author agrees with Clark on one point and simply notes he missed another - this isn't a comprehensive evaluation
- The main focus is on the historical significance of Lone Wolf, not on critiquing Clark's scholarship
Why It's Right:
- The entire passage is focused on explaining the true historical significance of the 1903 Lone Wolf decision
- The author demonstrates how this case was more important than commonly understood
- The passage structure builds toward showing the broader historical impact of this single event
Why It's Wrong:
- The author isn't debunking a revisionist interpretation - they're correcting a common misconception about timing
- The "many commentators" who think the change happened in 1871 aren't presenting a revisionist view - they're just wrong about when something occurred
- This is about historical facts and chronology, not about challenging an interpretive school of thought
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage focuses on a specific historical event and its consequences, not on abstract relationships
- While law (the court decision) affects social reality (Native American relations), this broad relationship isn't the author's primary concern
- The author is analyzing one particular legal decision's historical impact, not exploring general law-society relationships