The ruling in the 1991 case would be most relevant as a precedent for deciding in a future case that which one of the...

Mazen on April 30, 2022

In defining the term "tradition," the notion of "species' Endangerment" was not in the 1991 court's evidence or ruling which is the question; therefore it cannot an established precedent; hence the elimination of answer-choice B.

However, according to paragraph four, the 1991 court heard testimony establishing the use of sea otters in the late 1700s (lines 41 through 45) which prompted the judges inn this court to reconsider. It then reasoned on the basis of another fact that Alaskan natives were prevented from practicing their tradition because of circumstances out of their control (lines 49 through 53).

Answer-choice C states:
"A handicraft that was once common but was discontinued when herd animals necessary for its practice abandoned their local habitat due to industrial development."

"Industrial development," similarly to the "Fur Seal Treaty of 1910," created a circumstance that prevented the practitioners of the handicraft from continuing their tradition.

In other words, the group practicing the handicraft were forced to discontinue their "once common practice because of circumstances out of their control:" industrial development."

A future court cannot say that the handicraft is not tradition because it was not practiced with "continuity and regularity"; after all, "the continuity and the regularity" of the practice of the handicraft was interrupted because of circumstances outside the control of its practitioners: "the industrial development."