Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Which one of the following situations most closely parallels that of the Oneida delegates in refusing to accept a lump-sum payment of \(\$ 60,000\) ? (A) A university offers a student a four-year scholarship with the stipulation that the student not accept any outside employment; the student refuses the offer and attends a different school because the amount of the scholarship would not have covered living expenses. (B) A company seeking to reduce its payroll obligations offers an employee a large bonus if he will accept early retirement; the employee refuses because he does not want to compromise an outstanding worker's compensation suit. (C) Parents of a teenager offer to pay her at the end of the month for performing weekly chores rather than paying her on a weekly basis; the teenager refuses because she has a number of financial obligations that she must meet early in the month. (D) A car dealer offers a customer a \(\$ 500\) cash payment for buying a new car; the customer refuses because she does not want to pay taxes on the amount, and requests instead that her monthly payments be reduced by a proportionate amount. (E) A landlord offers a tenant several months rent-free in exchange for the tenant's agreeing not to demand that her apartment be painted every two years, as is required by the lease; the tenant refuses because she would have to spend her own time painting the apartment.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Option A most closely parallels the situation of the Oneida delegates.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Oneida Delegates' Situation

The Oneida delegates refused a lump-sum payment of $60,000. To find a parallel situation, we need to understand why the lump sum was refused. It was likely related to the terms or conditions involving future benefits or payments that were deemed less favorable or insufficient for their needs or expectations.
02

Analyze Option A

Assess if the situation is parallel: A student refuses a scholarship that requires not working, choosing a different school because the scholarship wouldn't cover living expenses. The refusal involves an unsuitable offer that doesn't meet all needs, similar to the refusal of a lump sum due to insufficient benefit.
03

Analyze Option B

Assess if the situation is parallel: An employee refuses a bonus for early retirement to not affect a compensation suit. Here, the refusal is driven by legal considerations, not directly by a financial insufficiency, making it different from the Oneida's likely financial inadequacy concerns.
04

Analyze Option C

Assess if the situation is parallel: A teenager refuses being paid at month-end for chores instead of weekly due to early financial obligations. Here, the issue is timing of payments rather than insufficient total amount; timing concerns may not parallel the likely financial motives of the Oneida delegates.
05

Analyze Option D

Assess if the situation is parallel: A car buyer refuses a cash payment to avoid taxes, opting for reduced monthly payments instead. The refusal involves changing terms due to tax avoidance rather than concerns over insufficient benefits, thus differing from the Oneida's situation.
06

Analyze Option E

Assess if the situation is parallel: A tenant refuses rent-free months in exchange for forgoing lease-required painting, to avoid painting themselves. The concern over time rather than financial adequacy or disparity makes this situation likely not parallel with the Oneida's financial assessment.
07

Identify the Closest Parallel Situation

A parallel situation should involve refusal due primarily to financial inadequacy or unsatisfactory terms relative to overall needs or expectations. Option A's refusal based on insufficient scholarship funds most closely mirrors what can be assumed about the Oneida's refusal based on financial reasoning.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is essential in evaluating complex scenarios where multiple outcomes are possible. In the exercise concerning the Oneida delegates, critical thinking involves analyzing why they refused the lump sum payment. It is not enough to know that the amount offered was $60,000; the critical thinker must delve into the context behind the refusal.

This process entails considering:
  • The value of the offer relative to potential future benefits.
  • The adequacy of the payment in meeting the delegates' obligations or needs.
  • Whether any accompanying conditions are disadvantageous.
A critical thinker would compare each scenario in the multiple-choice options by weighing similar considerations. For instance, in Option A, the student's refusal mirrors the Oneida's decision because the scholarship failed to cover essential living costs, much like how the lump sum may not have been adequate for the Oneida.
Thus, critical thinking is about systematically breaking down information and comparing it to understand deeper motivations and consequences.
LSAT Preparation
When preparing for the LSAT, exercises like the one presented are invaluable for honing logical reasoning skills. The LSAT is designed to test how well one can evaluate arguments, exercise sound judgment, and assess various scenarios.

In the exercise, each option represents an argument that could parallel the Oneida delegates' situation. A student must analyze these arguments and decide which one aligns most closely with the underlying reasons for the refusal of a lump sum payment. This involves:
  • Identifying logical patterns and parallels in seemingly unrelated cases.
  • Assessing arguments for relevance and sufficiency.
  • Applying logical rules for determining the strength and validity of an argument.
Practicing with similar exercises helps build the skills necessary to excel in the logical reasoning section of the LSAT. The key is to approach each question methodically, ensuring that each detail supports an informed decision about the parallel case.
Problem Solving Skills
Developing strong problem-solving skills is crucial for tasks like determining which situation matches that of the Oneida delegates. Solving such problems involves a structured approach:
  • Identify the core issue, which in this case is the financial inadequacy or other unfavorable conditions associated with the lump sum payment.
  • Systematically compare each scenario presented with the original problem, identifying any shared characteristics.
  • Use deductive reasoning to eliminate options that do not meet the parallel criteria.
For example, in tackling this exercise, a problem solver must recognize that Options B, C, D, and E have different underlying rationales, such as legal considerations, timing of payments, tax implications, or time investments, which do not directly parallel the Oneida situation's likely financial context.

Problem-solving skills are enhanced by practicing such logical exercises, as each scenario provides an opportunity to apply reasoning strategies effectively. The focus should always be on interpreting the problem accurately and using structured thinking to arrive at the best solution.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

People who accuse the postal service of incompetence and inefficiency while complaining of the proposed five-cent increase in postal rates do not know a bargain when they see one. Few experiences are more enjoyable than reading a personal letter from a friend. Viewed in this way, postal service is so underpriced that a five-cent increase is unworthy of serious debate. The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument (A) suggests that the postal service is both competent and efficient, but does not establish how competence and efficiency should be measured (B) claims that the proposed increase is insignificant but does not say at what level the increase would be worthy of serious debate (C) confuses the value of the object delivered with the value of delivering that object (D) appeals to an outside authority for support of a premise that should be established by argument (E) fails to establish whether or not the critics of the postal service are employees of the postal service

English and the Austronesian language Mbarbaram both use the word "dog" for canines. These two languages are unrelated, and since speakers of the two languages only came in contact with one another long after the word "dog" was first used in this way in either language, neither language could have borrowed the word from the other. Thus this case shows that sometimes when languages share words that are similar in sound and meaning the similarity is due neither to language relatedness nor to borrowing. The argument requires that which one of the following be assumed? (A) English and Mbarbaram share no words other than "dog." (B) Several languages besides English and Mbarbaram use "dog" as the word for canines. (C) Usually when two languages share a word, those languages are related to each other. (D) There is no third language from which both English and Mbarbaram borrowed the word "dog." (E) If two unrelated languages share a word, speakers of those two languages must have come in contact with one another at some time.

Balance is particularly important when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts. Facts must not be deliberately manipulated to show one party in a favorable light, and the views of each side should be fairly represented. This concept of balance, however, does not justify concealing or glossing over basic injustices in an effort to be even-handed. If all the media were to adopt such a perverse interpretation of balanced reporting, the public would be given a picture of a world where each party in every conflict had an equal measure of justice on its side, contrary to our experience of life and, indeed, our common sense. Which one of the following best expresses the main point of the argument? (A) Balanced reporting presents the public with a picture of the world in which all sides to a conflict have equal justification. (B) Balanced reporting requires impartially revealing injustices where they occur no less than fairly presenting the views of each party in a conflict. (C) Our experience of life shows that there are indeed cases in which conflicts arise because of an injustice, with one party clearly in the wrong. (D) Common sense tells us that balance is especially needed when reporting the background of civil wars and conflicts. (E) Balanced reporting is an ideal that cannot be realized, because judgments of balance are necessarily subjective.

Infants younger than six months who have normal hearing can readily distinguish between acoustically similar sounds that are used as part of any language not only those used in the language spoken by the people who raise them. Young adults can readily distinguish between such sounds only in languages that they regularly use. It is known that the physiological capacity to hear begins to deteriorate after infancy. So the observed difference in the abilities of infants and young adults to distinguish between acoustically similar speech sounds must be the result of the physiological deterioration of hearing. The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument (A) sets an arbitrary cutoff point of six months for the age below which infants are able to distinguish acoustically similar speech sounds (B) does not explain the procedures used to measure the abilities of two very different populations (C) ignores the fact that certain types of speech sounds occur in almost all languages (D) assumes that what is true of a group of people taken collectively is also true of any individual within that group (E) takes a factor that might contribute to an explanation of the observed difference as a sufficient explanation for that difference

Waste management companies, which collect waste for disposal in landfills and incineration plants, report that disposable plastics make up an ever- increasing percentage of the waste they handle. It is clear that attempts to decrease the amount of plastic that people throw away in the garbage are failing. Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? (A) Because plastics create harmful pollutants when burned, an increasing percentage of the plastics handled by waste management companies are being disposed of in landfills. (B) Although many plastics are recyclable, most of the plastics disposed of by waste management companies are not. (C) People are more likely to save and reuse plastic containers than containers made of heavier materials like glass or metal. (D) An increasing proportion of the paper, glass, and metal cans that waste management companies used to handle is now being recycled. (E) While the percentage of products using plastic packaging is increasing, the total amount of plastic being manufactured has remained unchanged.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free