[abhasjha]

No takers for this reading comprehension passage ?!!! here goes the official explanation :

The second passage in this section outlines the post-World War II conflict between the
federal government’s policy of Native American “readjustment,” outlined in Paragraph 1,
and an alternative view held by some Native Americans themselves. When you see that a
passage is based on a contrast, don’t endeavor to understand all of its nuances. It’s
usually enough to work out the broad outlines. Here, we see that basically the government
called for greater assimilation of Native Americans into mainstream society, on the
grounds that reservation life may have limited the Constitutional rights of the people. In
contrast, and at about the same time, Native Americans wanted to strengthen tribal unity
and identity instead of assimilating.
Paragraph 1 ends by promising that the Wisconsin Oneida tribe’s experience with BIA will
act as evidence for the clash, and that promise is fulfilled by the rest of the passage. In
Paragraph 2 we get the details of the BIA's readjustment offer to the Oneida — essentially,
inducements to convert the tribe from collective to private land ownership (including the
taxes that, no surprise, accompany it). We find out in Paragraph 3 why the Oneida rejected
the deal. Structural signals really help you sort out any kind of list, particularly a list of
“reasons why” something happened: You might have wanted to seek out and highlight
“first suggestion” (l. 36-37), “equally suspicious of” (l. 45), and “Finally” (l. 49), as a way of
sorting out which reason in Paragraph 3 links up to which offer in Paragraph 2. But of
course, as lines 33-35 announce, all three reasons basically boil down to the same thing:
The tribe had heard it all before. Paragraph 4 hints at the consequences of that rejection,
linking up “the lessons of history” (l. 60) with line 35. As you read through a passage,
always try to grasp its big idea and structure. This will make the questions much easier
to handle. Don't try to memorize the details. Once you get the big idea and structure
down, it'll be easy enough to relocate details.
7. (C) As Paragraph 1 mentions, a central tenet of readjustment was the belief that Native
Americans should be assimilated into mainstream America. A program designed to
encourage Native Americans to move from reservations (whose residents consist solely of
members of the same tribe) to urban areas (where they would be certain to mix with
individuals of different backgrounds) would go a long way toward accomplishing
readjustment's goal of assimilating Native Americans into mainstream society. That makes
choice (C) the scenario most consistent with the policy of readjustment.
The scenarios presented in each of the wrong choices would have the opposite effect of that
intended by readjustment. Rather than promote assimilation, each of these developments
would tend to strengthen Native American institutions and identity, an outcome favored
by Native Americans themselves, not by those who advocated readjustment. A common
wrong-answer choice on the LSAT is the choice that contradicts information in the
passage, so be aware of it.



8. (A) The outcome of the ‘56 meeting is the topic of Paragraph 4, so look there. Always,
always, always try to figure out which paragraph a given answer is likely to come from,
before you start to attack the answer choices. And the more trouble you have locating
the likely paragraph, the more certain it is that you just don’t have enough of a handle on
the passage structure! Anyhow, after rejecting readjustment in the wake of the meeting,
the Oneida asked instead for federal funds for such things as better education and housing.
Put another way, they wanted to improve the quality of life for members of the tribe, as correct choice (A) says. Remember, correct answers often put a little spin on the passage
text — a bit of paraphrase.
Wrong choices (B) and (E) contradict information in the passage. In contrast to what (B)
says, the Oneida were already pursuing land claims before the 1956 meeting (claims
mentioned in Paragraph 3, in fact). And (E) is a readjustment idea: In rejecting
readjustment, the Oneida were attempting to maintain their distinct lifestyle, not to pursue
one similar to that of other Americans. (C) is outside the scope of the passage: We're never
told what position the Oneida took on their political status, before or after the 1956
meeting. Answer choices that raise issues that the passage does not grapple with
sometimes appear . Don't waste time trying to track down an issue that seems to you as
if it came out of nowhere. It probably did. Finally, while we're told that Native Americans
in general wanted to develop tribal institutions in order to preserve their traditional way
of life, the passage never specifically says that the Oneida sought new tribal institutions
after the 1956 meeting, eliminating (E).
Never answer a question on a hunch. If you're unsure about what the passage says about
something, go back to the text and find the answer. And again, use your knowledge of the
passage's structure to guide your search.



9. (A) As we've already mentioned, the role of Paragraph 1 is to describe two policies
toward Native Americans that were in conflict during the 1940s and 1950s, setting the stage
for the description of how this conflict played itself out in the specific instance of the
Wisconsin Oneida vs. the BIA. In more abstract terms, which is what Question 9 wants,
Paragraph 1 explains the cause of a specific conflict discussed later in the passage. That
makes choice (A) the correct answer.
Of the wrong choices, (B) is perhaps the most difficult to eliminate. Paragraph 1 does
present two positions, those of the federal government and Native Americans on
readjustment. But so does the rest of the passage, which presents both sides of the story in
the description of the BIA-Oneida negotiations over readjustment. True, the author sides
with the Oneida, but it's an exaggeration for (B) to say that he “defends” their case to the
exclusion of that made by the BIA. Moreover, this choice is inferior to choice (A) because
it doesn't allude to the 1956 meeting that is the topic of the remaining paragraphs. Far from
comparing interpretations of a historical conflict (C), Paragraph 1 provides background
information necessary to comprehend a historical conflict. By the same token, Paragraph 1
explains why a historical event unfolded the way it did; it includes no “analysis” of causes
and certainly includes no future predictions (D). Finally, (E) is completely off base.
Paragraph 1 a history of the BIA? The agency isn’t even mentioned until line 18.


10. (C) Pick up the phrase “increased awareness” in line 6, recognize through the
“because” that the phrase is providing evidence for a conclusion, read a few more lines,
and you’re home free. This awareness led to a feeling that reservation life might limit the
Constitutional rights of Native Americans and, in turn, to the “readjustment movement” (l.
8-9). (C) sums that up pithily.
The author does contrast the readjustment movement with another social phenomenon (A),
namely the Native American effort to assert unity and identity, but doesn’t begin to do so
until line 13, which is too far removed from the civil rights reference. Watch out for
choices that are true (according to the passage), but irrelevant to the question at hand.
Regarding (B), increased awareness of civil rights played a part in determining
government policy, not that of Native Americans. In fact, we're never told why Native
Americans were so concerned to protect their unity and identity, just that they were concerned with these things. The text doesn't tell us anything about the specific motives of
BIA bureaucrats (D); we know only that they supported the policy of readjustment. In
Reading Comp., as in Logical Reasoning, choices that question people’s motives tend to
be incorrect. As for (E), if anything the author sides with Native Americans against
readjustment, and certainly has no advocative purpose in Paragraph 1 or anywhere else.
Why the heck would he be fostering support for a policy dating back more than a quarter
of a century, anyway?


11. (B) We already know that readjustment advocates believed that the federal
government should end its special involvement in Native American affairs. (B) makes this
point, though in a slightly different way. Saying that Native Americans should be treated
by the government in precisely the same way as others are treated is more or less
equivalent to saying that the government should butt out. Again, the correct answer to
inference questions often restates in different language an idea contained in the passage.
You are rarely asked to make a true inference by taking the passage's logic a step further.
Advocates of readjustment would disagree with all four wrong choices for the simple
reason that they all endorse the notion that it’s the government’s role to help maintain
Native Americans as a community apart or, at least, to provide them with significant
support . Indeed, it is opponents of readjustment who would be likely to agree with the
sentiments expressed in (A), (C), (D), and (E). After all, according to the passage,
opponents of readjustment wanted the federal government to improve the quality of life
for Native Americans while maintaining the special status of Native American land.

12. (A) The treaty in question is mentioned only once, in the last sentence of Paragraph 2,
but it is implicitly alluded to at the end of Paragraph 3 and it’s there that the answer to
Question 12 is to be found. How come? Because (as you’ll recall), each of the offers made
by the BIA in Paragraph 2 got an Oneida reaction, and each reaction is described in turn in
Paragraph 3. This is an excellent example of how some questions require you to relate two
or more references from different parts of the passage, and you’ve got to stay heads-up or
you’ll blow it. The “lump-sum payment” (l. 29 and again at l. 50) was of course “in lieu of”
(l. 29-30) the Canandaigua Treaty provisions, which the Oneida were clearly loath to
change because doing so might put at risk certain ongoing land claims. (A) is a bit vague
but on target. At least it gets the positive tone right.
Of the wrong choices, (B) and (E) can be eliminated on the basis of their negative tone. It’s
not the Treaty that was a source of problems (B) but the readjustment policy, and (E) is a
genuine au contraire choice — one which gives us the exact opposite of what the question
is asking for. “An obsolete agreement”? Au contraire. (C) and (D) are positive statements
but poor choices. Since the tribe and the government were already bound together by the
Canandaigua Treaty, the delegates would have no reason to view the treaty as a model for
a potential future agreement with the federal government (C). And as for (D), it’s really
reaching to describe the Oneidas’ desire to affirm tribal identity as an aspiration to become
“an independent...nation”; and even if that were a fair characterization, the passage never
links it up with the Canandaigua Treaty.


13. (B) Treat a Reading Comp. parallel reasoning question like any other; there should be
no difference in your approach. We’re fortunate in that this one picks up on the issues we
were just exploring in Question 12. Lines 29-32 describe the payment and lines 49-53
describe the refusal. Remember, the rejection was not based on financial grounds, but on
the fact that the $60,000 would alter the terms of the Canandaigua Treaty and jeopardize
certain pending land claims. So a parallel situation would involve someone turning down
an offer not on financial grounds, but because it would have dire legal consequences.
That’s (B), of course — and notice that the gesture of the Oneidas and that of the employee
share a certain selflessness that makes the parallel even tighter.
None of the other choices reflects this logic. In choices (A), (C) and (D), the student, the
teenager, and the customer, respectively, refuse the deals offered to them by the university,
the parents, and the car dealer, respectively, purely on financial grounds. In none of these
scenarios is a deal refused for a legal reason (or, for that matter, a selfless one). Finally,
although the scenario in choice (E) involves a legal issue, the tenant really refuses the
landlord’s offer because it would inconvenience her, not because accepting it might
jeopardize a legal position.