Quote:
Originally Posted by abhasjha
12. (A) The treaty in question is mentioned only once, in the last sentence of Paragraph 2,
but it is implicitly alluded to at the end of Paragraph 3 and it’s there that the answer to
Question 12 is to be found. How come? Because (as you’ll recall), each of the offers made
by the BIA in Paragraph 2 got an Oneida reaction, and each reaction is described in turn in
Paragraph 3. This is an excellent example of how some questions require you to relate two
or more references from different parts of the passage, and you’ve got to stay heads-up or
you’ll blow it. The “lump-sum payment” (l. 29 and again at l. 50) was of course “in lieu of”
(l. 29-30) the Canandaigua Treaty provisions, which the Oneida were clearly loath to
change because doing so might put at risk certain ongoing land claims. (A) is a bit vague
but on target. At least it gets the positive tone right.
Of the wrong choices, (B) and (E) can be eliminated on the basis of their negative tone. It’s
not the Treaty that was a source of problems (B) but the readjustment policy, and (E) is a
genuine au contraire choice — one which gives us the exact opposite of what the question
is asking for. “An obsolete agreement”? Au contraire. (C) and (D) are positive statements
but poor choices. Since the tribe and the government were already bound together by the
Canandaigua Treaty, the delegates would have no reason to view the treaty as a model for
a potential future agreement with the federal government (C). And as for (D), it’s really
reaching to describe the Oneidas’ desire to affirm tribal identity as an aspiration to become
“an independent...nation”; and even if that were a fair characterization, the passage never
links it up with the Canandaigua Treaty.
|
Hi,
Thanks for posting this great reading comprehension passage along with the explanations.
I'd really appreciate of you could clarify this doubt of mine :
i am just not able to understand how did you arrive at the conclusion that the canandaigua treaty was positive for natives?
They've mentioned how they had long pending payments ( which isn't too good) and no where has it been mentioned that it was positive for them...
Hope to hear from you soon...