Thanks for the question! Let’s start off by getting a bird’s eye view of the passage. The first paragraph gives us background about the Dawes Act. The next paragraph gives us stated government rationales for the Act. The third paragraph rejects those government rationales, and the fourth paragraph offers an alternative proposal. This is effectively what answer choice (D) tells us. The law being described is the Dawes Act. the rationale put forward is the government rationale, which the author dismisses in the third paragraph, and then the author puts forward her theory about the Act benefitting the politicians and bureaucrats.
(A) is wrong because we don’t analyze the passage of the law (which would likely involve looking at people who lobbied for it and the legislative debates surrounding it). We can stop there, but the benefits and drawbacks aren’t studied either, though some of the ways the laws burden Native Americans are.
(B) is wrong because we don’t examine the effects of one of the clauses of the Dawes Act on various populations. Even if we were to count politicians/bureaucrats as a “population†(along with Native Americans), the author doesn’t advocate repeal of the law.
(C) is wrong because aren’t told about the political and social backgrounds of the clause , nor are we told about its permanent effects.
(E) is wrong because the passage focuses on the Dawes Act and doesn’t talk about the legal status of Native Americans with respect to issues of landownership and commercial autonomy as a whole, nor are rival groups discussed.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask if you have any further questions.
