OG12-12 即 GWD-10 (社科题材)文章结构分析 - 印第安部落水权

lisalee

传说中的难题~ 对我而言, 也不例外, 呵呵! 跟大家情况差不多, 俺这也不算丢脸诶~
7道题中错了4个....后来还花了许多时间反复揣摩OG解释,
这应该是篇社会科学题材的文章, 居然出了3个推断题, 还有个评价题, 不把该文的逻辑思路理清楚是没办法把题做对的...汗!
淡定...淡定...毕竟碰到这种难题还是有一定几率滴, 4篇里面最多碰到一篇吧?!

话说文章共2段:
第一段: 描述一些印第安部落如FB通过建立保留的立法来确立水权;
第二段: 解释另一些印第安部落如RG则是藉由惯例转换的立法来确立水权;

备注: 黄色高亮是主题句定位, 灰色高亮是细节题定位, 蓝色高亮是推断题定位,绿色字体是评价题定位
还是将原文帖一个~
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(15) withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn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ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public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.