I’m happy to help. As always, let’s start with the question stem. We are looking for the statement that the author would most likely agree with.
Answer C states that if there had been clear evidence that the group had occupied land before the establishment of British sovereignty, the court would probably have upheld the claims. This answer is incorrect because we know from the passage that “[e]ven when aboriginal ownership of specific lands is fully established, there remains the problem of interpreting the meaning of that ‘ownership’.â€
Therefore, we know that the view of the author of the passage is that success of a claim does not depend on clear evidence, as answer C suggests, but on other factors — such as how the law had recognized (or not) the rights of the aboriginal people as merely the right to use land, and the minimal property rights that follow.
I hope that helps! Please let us know if you have further questions.
