Q12

[b91302310]

I have no idea about (B) and (E). I even felt that E is better than B because the law itself allows the finder of abondaned property to claim ownership and meanwhile also rule that the buried body is not a abandoned property. I really don't know how to get (B). Could anyone explain it?

Thanks.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post!

According to the passage, part of the court's ruling is that burying stuff with the dead body "is not intended as a means of relinquishing ownership to a stranger." So the court clearly considered the intent, i.e., the reason, of the people doing the burying. That's why (B) is correct.

(E) is no good because the court never addresses this question. It rules that the abandonment doctrine doesn't apply in a certain situation, but it doesn't say whether the land can be considered abandoned in the first place.

Does that answer your question?

[rnduan]

The reason why B is correct and E is wrong is so subtle. After reading B and E for a third time on a second attempt at this section, I realized "abandoned property" in E refers to the land, and not the object - that's so key. Also, it was difficult in the heat of the moment to extract "intention" in B from "reason for burial".

Thanks for the clarification

[al2568]

I thought D might be useful as the court considered whether to grant standing to the descendants.

I understand that B is more pertinent and the correct answer though.

[phoebster21]

I picked D too,
But I realized later that the whole issue of whether the descendants were still in the area was just a detail (a modifier claim) describing when the grave would be subject to despoliation.

The psg states that IF the court did rule this as abandonment, then they'd be granting grave robbers the right to go and plunder a grave "either immediately after internment or ... after removal of the descendants from the neighborhood"

The passage could have easily inserted any other modifier, such as "immediately after internment or on the eve of the rise of the 8th full moon" or something. lol.

So it's not that the courts look to see IF the decendants are still there, rather, this whole issue of descendents is just adding a tiny detail to when despolitation would occur.

It just throws us off because the passage is concerned with descendants looking to establish standing in the first place so it seems, on the surface, to be relevant.