This is a parallel reasoning question. The question stem is asking us to identify the answer choice that most parallels the Oneida delegation's refusal to accept a lump-sum payment from the BIA for tribal lands.
Let's go back to the text. Look in particular at lines 49-53: "Finally, the offer of a lump-sum payment was unanimously opposed by the Oneida delegates, who saw that changing the terms of a treaty might jeopardize the many pending land claims based upon the treaty."
Answer choice (B) parallels this reasoning beautifully: "A company seeking to reduce its payroll obligations offers an employee a large bonus [this is like a lump sum] if he will accept early retirement; the employee refuses because he does not want to compromise an outstanding [a pre-existing] worker's compensation suit [that is, a pending claim based on his status as an employed rather than retired person]."
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
mak16153May 30, 2020
I understand the parallel reasoning here. However, is an existing compensation lawsuit the same thing as an existing treaty? That comparison threw me off.
mak16153May 30, 2020
Wait never mind. I re-read your explanation. Makes sense now! Thank you!
