GMAT OG13阅读翻译!大家备考GMAT阅读部分，也会参考考试的官方指南：OG，对于资料中的一些文章内容，大家在理解上可能也有一定的难度，因此下面小编为大家整理了详细的内容，供大家参考!
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws—and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.[line10-20]
Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States' acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine[line38-42]. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.
Questions 56-62 refer to the passage above.
56. According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation?
A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
C. It cited American Indians' traditional use of the land's resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation's inhabitants.
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
57. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 10-20 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation's water rights, which of the following would be true?
A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
58. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines 38-42, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in lines 10-20?
A. Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and establishes a competing set of criteria for applying the Winters doctrine.
B. Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters doctrine applies to a broader range of situations than those defined by these criteria.
C. Arizona v. California represents the sole example of an exception to the criteria as they were set forth in the Winters doctrine.
D. Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
E. Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands other than American Indian reservations.
以上就是关于“GMAT OG13阅读翻译”的内容，相信大家对接下来的备考内容，有更清晰的了解。GMAT考试成绩的高分，并不是一蹴而就的，大家还是需要踏踏实实的练习备考，才能真正的提升我们的分数。