Question

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

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

Step-by-step solution

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Key concepts

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.