GWD-10-Q25 to GWD-10-Q28:(號稱GWD最難的一篇)

[agk99]

GWD-10-Q25 to GWD-10-Q28:

In Winters v. United States
(1908), the Supreme Court held
that the right to use waters flow-
ing through or adjacent to the
(5) 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
(10) 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
(15) their lands would have been useless.
Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts
can find federal rights to reserve
water for particular purposes if
(20) (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formally withdrawn from federal
public lands — i.e., withdrawn from
(25) 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
(30) intended to reserve water as well
as land when establishing the
reservation.很清楚提出三種狀況下，政府可以出面：管轄之外、獨立於聯邦土地之外、以及保護水及土地的時候
本以為紅字很重要，結果沒考

Some American Indian tribes
have also established water rights
(35) through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty. (在美國政府宣稱有主權之前使用，原住民也可以訴求水權，暗示沒有 law也行)
For example, the Rio Grande
(40) 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
(45) 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or withdrawn the pueblos from
(50) public lands as American Indian
reservations.(提醒這裡是第一段三條件的例外) This fact, however(再次轉折，
明顯是轉回第一段的語氣),
has not barred (記得我第一次錯就是沒有體會到bar的正確用法，這是指不受winter學說的影響)application
of the Winters doctrine. 簡單來說，就是指除了第一段的三大條件外，
有些特例也是行的通的，而且這些特例，即使沒有立法，10-25有題
也不影印弟安人的水權 What
constitutes an American Indian
(55) reservation is a question of
practice, not of legal definition,
and the pueblos have always (重點10-26有題)
been treated as reservations by
the United States. This pragmatic
(60) 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
(65) affect the application to it of the
Winters doctrine. (進一步講這個例外不牴觸winter的學說)Therefore, the
reserved water rights of Pueblo
Indians have priority over other
citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
(70) the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations.

[agk99]

GWD-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?
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to
apply to pueblo lands
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public
lands
D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians
are limited by the Winters doctrine
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the
traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Answer: 讀通就可以選出A，請對照至51-54行
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-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?

A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would
not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with
reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in
order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

Answer: 文章第一段討論的是法律的規定，第二段講的是被認可的例外情況，若是第一段講的是唯一基礎，那麼第二段講的rio granda就沒有水權了，選C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-10-Q27:
According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters
case.
C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
Answer:我選D，請參照第九行
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-10-Q28:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American
Indian tribes
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government
recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian
reservations
Answer:
通篇都在講legal rule law treaty….而且沒有作者的態度，文章都是敘述與解釋，所以選B最好

[davidlee0222]

來了來了
大衛語音教學
陪大家守歲囉~

其實了解文章就一點也不難
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... 1&start=30

[chloemoney]

嗯...
我沒有找到這篇的語音教學也....
只有 GWD-10-33-35的

[chloemoney]

GWD-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?
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to
apply to pueblo lands
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public
lands
D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians
are limited by the Winters doctrine
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the
traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
Answer: 讀通就可以選出A，請對照至51-54行
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-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?

A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would
not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with
reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in
order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

Answer: 文章第一段討論的是法律的規定，第二段講的是被認可的例外情況，若是第一段講的是唯一基礎，那麼第二段講的rio granda就沒有水權了，選C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-10-Q27:
According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?
A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters
case.
C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
Answer:我選D，請參照第九行
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GWD-10-Q28:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American
Indian tribes
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government
recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian
reservations
Answer:
通篇都在講legal rule law treaty….而且沒有作者的態度，文章都是敘述與解釋，所以選B最好

想請問一下，第25題
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
-->說明為什麼Winter doctrine沒有應用在pueblos lands 上
所謂winter doctrine沒有應用在pueblos lands 上
是因為首段指出要 by the treaty establishing the reservation
In Winters v. United States
(1908), the Supreme Court held
that the right to use waters flow-
Line ing through or adjacent to the
(5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians
by the treaty establishing the reservation.

而文章中39~51提到pueblos lands沒有立法的reservation

這樣 理解不知道對不對

謝謝！

[小晃兄]

GWD-10-Q28:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American
Indian tribes
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government
recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian
reservations

答案：B

這篇真的超難，寫的時候全錯 ，檢討時本題是在A、B中選一個，因為
55行有What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition
所以放棄了有legal base的B而選了A，想知道大家是怎麼選B，討論一下吧

[SugarChunda]

A. the development of laws (establishing American Indian reservations) 括號部分修飾 Laws.
所以A選項應該是指關於設立印地安保留區的法令, 但本文主要是討論保留區的水權, 故A選項應該偏離主題.

小小意見, 請指教 !

[小晃兄]

恩，謝謝囉。

[christina]

GWD-10-Q25:

想請問一下，第25題
A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
-->說明為什麼Winter doctrine沒有應用在pueblos lands 上
所謂winter doctrine沒有應用在pueblos lands 上
是因為首段指出要 by the treaty establishing the reservation
In Winters v. United States
(1908), the Supreme Court held
that the right to use waters flow-
Line ing through or adjacent to the
(5) Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians
by the treaty establishing the reservation.

而文章中39~51提到pueblos lands沒有立法的reservation

這樣 理解不知道對不對

謝謝！

請問各位牛大大,謝謝~
E選有何不妥之處?..下面這一句,是會選E的原因,...我錯在那?
Some American Indian tribes
have also established water rights
(35) through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty.

[CUGGYER]

E答案剛好跟事實相反

原文是說 按照doctrine
Rio Grande pueblos尚未成為美國領土 所以不適用這個水權條款
但因例外 所以還是可以應用這項條款
LINE 52~53
This fact, however,
has not barredapplication
of the Winters doctrine.

E答案變成 因為他不是美國領土 所以這項條款不能使用在Pueblo Indians 上
你PO的部分 剛好是第二段的開頭 後面在解釋為什麼
Pueblo Indians 可以用這項條款

E
Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the
traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

[christina]

E答案剛好跟事實相反

原文是說 按照doctrine
Rio Grande pueblos尚未成為美國領土 所以不適用這個水權條款
但因例外 所以還是可以應用這項條款
LINE 52~53
This fact, however,
has not barredapplication
of the Winters doctrine.

E答案變成 因為他不是美國領土 所以這項條款不能使用在Pueblo Indians 上
你PO的部分 剛好是第二段的開頭 後面在解釋為什麼
Pueblo Indians 可以用這項條款

E
Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the
traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

謝謝G大大的回覆,
E選會考慮的原因是..文中提到based on their
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty.
這是另一個獲得水權的方式,所以the Rio Grande pueblos 雖然沒有獲得正式的規範,也可保有水權,
而e選中提到"聯邦法院不能訴諸於司法請求反駁印地安人水權...
還是不懂,請大大們再教教我吧...謝謝~

[faithful]

GWD-10-Q28:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American
Indian tribes
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government
recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian
reservations

請教各位前輩，此題(E)錯在哪兒？
懇請告知，謝謝。

[christina]

E答案剛好跟事實相反

原文是說 按照doctrine
Rio Grande pueblos尚未成為美國領土 所以不適用這個水權條款
但因例外 所以還是可以應用這項條款
LINE 52~53
This fact, however,
has not barredapplication
of the Winters doctrine.

E答案變成 因為他不是美國領土 所以這項條款不能使用在Pueblo Indians 上
你PO的部分 剛好是第二段的開頭 後面在解釋為什麼
Pueblo Indians 可以用這項條款

E
Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the
traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

謝謝G大大的回覆,
E選會考慮的原因是..文中提到based on their
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty.
這是另一個獲得水權的方式,所以the Rio Grande pueblos 雖然沒有獲得正式的規範,也可保有水權,
而e選中提到"聯邦法院不能訴諸於司法請求反駁印地安人水權...
還是不懂,請大大們再教教我吧...謝謝~

容許我修改之前的想法..或許還是錯的
法院對保留水權的態度是positive(the Supreme Court held that...)
而E選法院對保留水權的態度是negative..所以E錯

[christina]

GWD-10-Q28:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American
Indian tribes
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government
recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian
reservations

請教各位前輩，此題(E)錯在哪兒？
懇請告知，謝謝。

這篇沒有作二者的比較只有說明二者的內容,
各在第一段第二段描述獲得水權有二個方向的方法..

[SELVICHY]

[quote="agk99"]GWD-10-Q25 to GWD-10-Q28:

In Winters v. United States
(1908), the Supreme Court held
that the right to use waters flow-
ing through or adjacent to the
(5) 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
(10) 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
(15) their lands would have been useless.
Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts
can find federal rights to reserve
water for particular purposes if
(20) [color=red](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
(25) 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
(30) intended to reserve water as well
as land when establishing the
reservation.[/color]很清楚提出三種狀況下，政府可以出面：管轄之外、獨立於聯邦土地之外、以及保護水及土地的時候
本以為紅字很重要，結果沒考

[color=red]Some American Indian tribes
have also established water rights
(35) through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of
certain waters prior to the United
States’ acquisition of sovereignty. [/color](在美國政府宣稱有主權之前使用，原住民也可以訴求水權，暗示沒有 law也行)
For example, the Rio Grande
(40) 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
(45) 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
(50) public lands as American Indian
reservations.(提醒這裡是第一段三條件的例外) This fact, however(再次轉折，
明顯是轉回第一段的語氣),
has not [b][color=red]barred [/color][/b](記得我第一次錯就是沒有體會到bar的正確用法，這是指不受winter學說的影響)application
of the Winters doctrine. 簡單來說，就是指除了第一段的三大條件外，
有些特例也是行的通的，而且這些特例，即使沒有立法，10-25有題
也不影印弟安人的水權 [color=red]What
constitutes an American Indian
(55) reservation is a question of
practice, not of legal definition,
and the pueblos have always (重點10-26有題)
been treated as reservations by
the United States.[/color] This pragmatic
(60) 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
(65) affect the application to it of the
Winters doctrine. (進一步講這個例外不牴觸winter的學說)Therefore, the
reserved water rights of Pueblo
Indians have priority over other
citizens’ water rights as of 1848,
(70) the year in which pueblos must
be considered to have become
reservations.[/quote]
----------------------------------------------
第25題我認為這位大大說錯了.
peublo的情況應該是在winter的學說範圍內的,
文章中雖然說peublo的情況迥異於winter的水權保護條款,
但其實仍然是符合的,
因為保護區的定義不是根據立法的依據,
而是根據實務上的應用(請見文章)
所以有人可能會認為因為沒有立法依據,所以法院沒辦法以三個規範來束縛peublo,
作者為了反駁上述的"認為",指出peublo未被取回的事實,
並不是因為他的條件不符合,
而是因為就是符合保護區水權的條例,且剛好在winter的三個需要被回收的條件之外,
所以peublo才不用被回收水權.
舉個例子來說,
如果你美若天仙(水權),我就保護你,
如果你美若天仙卻很欠扁,我就揍你,有三個情況我會揍你,
你罵我,你打我,你咬我.
現在有人看到麗莎沒有被我揍,
就說"喔,原來麗莎不是美若天仙(水權),他是醜八怪"
錯了,麗莎沒有被我揍,是因為他很美(水權),但不欠扁.
這樣懂了嗎?