The passage most strongly suggests that the court in the 1986 case believed that "traditional" should be defined in a...

shunhe on January 13, 2021

Hi @Jayla,

Thanks for the question! So this question is asking us how the court in the 1986 case thought that traditional should be defined. Well, where is that case discussed, and what did it say? It’s talked about in the last paragraph. And the case said that the government was right to ban using sea otter pelts. And so they must’ve thought that the “living memory” time frame wasn’t too restrictive.

(B) encompasses all of this. The court thinks “traditional” should emphasize continuity and regularity of practices to which the term is applied. There’s some evidence for this in the second paragraph, and it’s then refined at the end of the third paragraph. The court said that using sea otter pelts wasn’t a continual and regular tradition, and remember that that means “within living memory.”

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