This question requires us to make an inference based on the information in the passage. The first step would be to identify the part of the passage that discusses cases involving ancient graves. Lines 17-27 tell us that "in cases when the grave is ancient and located in the area where the community of Native Americans associated with it has not recently lived, they are less likely to [establish standing]. In most of these cases, to recognize the standing would represent a significant expansion of common law. In cases where standing can be achieved, common law may provide a basis for some NA claims against archeologists and museums."
This information can be summarized as: -common law is unlikely to provide standing in such cases -common law may provide basis for some claims once standing is established
The passage then goes on to provide a specific example of how common law could provide a basis for some claims. For example, property law - a subset of common law - can be useful in establishing NA claims to artifacts that are retrieved in the excavation of ancient graves and can be considered the communal property of NA tribes (lines 28-32)
With this in mind, let's look at the answer choices:
(A) Once a plaintiff's standing has been established, such cases are usually more difficult to resolve than cases involving more recent graves.
Incorrect. The difficulty of cases is outside the scope of the passage.
(B) The distinction between individual and communal property is usually an issue in such cases.
Incorrect. This looks like an attractive answer choice at first as the passage mentions the distinction between individual and communal property in the last paragraph as one of the issues that has been considered by the courts, but we cannot conclude that it is USUALLY an issue in such cases. Nothing else in the passage suggests that this distinction often comes up in the cases of ancient graves.
(C) Even when a plaintiff's standing has been established, property law cannot be used as a basis for the claims of NA in most such cases.
Incorrect. This statement directly contradicts the passage, we are told that common law - and property law as one option - may be used as a basis for claims once the standing has been established.
(D) In most such cases, common law does not currently provide a clear basis for establishing that NA have standing.
Correct. This statement is directly supported by the passage - "to recognize that NA have standing would represent a significant expansion of common law." This sentence suggests that currently, common law does not provide a basis for establishing standing.
(E) Common law is rarely used as a basis for the claims of NA who have established standing in such cases.
Incorrect. The passage tells us that common law may provide a basis, and since we have no information on how frequently it is used as a basis, we cannot conclude that it is rarely used.
Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any further questions.
JackMFebruary 16, 2023
i had to arrive at this answer through eliminating everything else, but i was still uncertain of why this answer was correct.
Emil-KunkinFebruary 22, 2023
I think line 21-24 directly supports D, it tells us that in most cases, it would be an expansion of common law to recognize the standing of Native groups. This means that under current common law, they do not have standing.
