The passage suggests that in making the ruling in Carrier v. Bell the Court is most likely to have considered the ans...

Ravi April 30, 2019

@Karry-Jiao,

Great question. Let's take a look at (E) and (B).

The question says, "The passage suggests that in making the ruling in
Carrier v. Bell the Court is most likely to have considered the answer
to which one of the following questions?"

(E) says, "Could the property on which buried objects were found be
legally considered to be abandoned property?"

The problem with (E) is that the question was about whether or not the
objects themselves were considered abandoned property, not the land in
which the objects were buried. Thus, we can get rid of (E).

(B) says, "What was the reason for burying the objects in question?"

The question is asking about what the court was considering when it
made their ruling in Charrier v. Bell. This occurs at line 33 of the
passage. Here, we see that the doctrine of abandonment does not apply
to graves because "the practice of burying items with the body of the
deceased" 'is not intended as a means of relinquishing ownership to a
stranger'" (lines 37-39). From this, we know that the question they
were pondering was why artifacts were buried, and this leads us to
(B). When the doctrine of abandonment is applicable, items are
abandoned because they're not wanted anymore, but this is not the case
in this instance.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Karry-Jiao May 1, 2019

Thanks for your detailed explanation! That's very helpful. @Ravi

Ravi May 1, 2019

@Karry-Jiao, happy to help! Let us know if you have any other questions!