Q12

[peg_city]

Where does it say A?

B however is in line 33-35.

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Some of the problems that the Oneida tribe faced and that are enumerated in this passage include: loss of land due to an inability to pay taxes on that land and the sale of lands to unscrupulous speculators.

However the source of these problems is never claimed to be the Canandaigua Treaty. Instead the passage suggests that it was the distribution of lands to native tribes that triggered the taxation and then eventual loss of those properties. And nowhere in the passage does it suggest that the ability to sell lands to unscrupulous speculators was a result of the Canandaigua Treaty.

Instead it does appear that the Oneida tribe believed that the Canandaigua Treaty was one of their chief means by which to protect some of their outstanding land claims (end of the 3rd paragraph). So it appears that the Oneida saw the treaty as an important safeguard on their rights and thus rejected the one-time lump sum payment in exchange for the $0.52 annuity guaranteed in the treaty so as not damage any of those land claims.

Does that answer your question?

[rquigley8]

I think that is a pretty big stretch

A: The passage suggest they feel the Canandiauga Treaty is a "safegaurd"


^ the passage does not suggest the Oneida's feel that way about the treaty, unless I'm missing something. As mentioned, it does not indicate that the Oneida's have a problem with the treaty but it doesn't suggest safegaurd imo.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm not saying that the Oneida are grateful for this treaty. I'm sure they feel they got the raw end of the deal. But they're not willing to jeopardize losing the terms of the treaty, because now that they've given up so much, all they feel they can do is make the federal government live up to the promises it made in the Treaty.

Look at (lines 49-53). The passage says why the Oneida saw that changing the terms of the Treaty would be bad.

What do you think?

[hoyeon.cho]

Not too sure yet
'a treaty' in line 52 might not be identical with the Canandaigua Treaty.. Right?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

sure, but that's way too technical of a reading. Line 52 is definitely discussing how the Oneida felt about changing the terms of "a treaty," and how that would affect them. So it doesn't really make sense for us to throw in the idea that we could be discussing a completely different treaty.

I think on this one you should allow your reasoning to have some influence. But technically your correct. The words "a treaty" don't necessarily have to apply to any one specific treaty, whereas had they used the words "the treaty" it would have been beyond a doubt.

Hope that helps!

[krisk743]

The explanation for answer A is in no way clear. The Oneida delegates clearly "unanimously opposed" the payment due to it possibly jeopardizing pending land claims.

How the hell is that taken to be a "valuable safeguard of certain rights"??? It would be a valuable safeguard to NOT accept the treaty but that is in no way implied. What am I missing?