It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial system of the United States "accommodating" (line 10) primarily...

shunhe on August 6, 2020

Hi @Julia!,

Thanks for the question! So we’re asked here to basically tell why the author calls the judicial system of the US “accommodating.” We’re told this is from line 10, so we should go to that line and read both above and below it in order to understand the full context.

If we read the lines above line 10 in the first paragraph, we’re told that “the Court’s decisions have been products of political compromise that looked more to the temper of the times than to enduring principles of law. But accommodation is part of the judicial system…” (lines 4-8). So accommodation is referring to the Court making decisions based more on politics than trying to make some judicial principles.

Then, in line 10, we see the word “accommodating” in quotation marks. Quotation marks can have several meanings, some of which you’re more familiar, like when you’re actually quoting a source or there’s direct dialogue. Here, the quotes are being used sarcastically, like when you put air quotes around something you might say. For example, do I trust him? Yeah, I “trust” him. The quotes are being used here to indicate irony.

So what’s the rest of this sentence? Well, despite this “accommodating nature,” the Supreme Court has still helped out Native Americans on minor issues and hasn’t been that bad on the whole. The “despite” in the beginning part tells us that there’s a contrast, so we’re basically being given a reason there why the Supreme Court might have not acted beneficially to Native Americans. And that’s because of this “accommodating” nature, since it accommodates those in political power (white people) and not marginalized groups (Native Americans). And that’s what (C) says, that the “accommodating” nature of the Supreme Court actually suggests a reason why the Supreme Court’s decisions didn’t favor Native Americans. Because it was being “accommodating” to the wants and needs of the politically powerful, and not minority groups.

(A) is wrong because the author’s arguing the opposite, that actually, though you think the Supreme Court screwed over Native Americans a ton, it’s not as bad as you might think.

(B) is wrong because it’s a bit too specific, and says that the word accommodating indicates that the Court “should” be more supportive, which isn’t really the purpose of that specific word.

(D) is wrong that’s not why the author uses “accommodating,” as evidenced by the “despite” in front of it (which indicates contrast).

(E) is wrong because it talks about fairness, which isn’t mentioned there, and so can’t be what “accommodating” is talking about.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.