reop6780 wrote:I was completely lost at the question number #12. First of all I'm confused of the lines 51 to 53. Just making sure that "the offer of a lump-sum payment" is part of Canandaigua Treaty. Then, how does the "changing of the terms of a treaty" jeopardize the pending claims? I mean the passage did not discuss about such claims earlier. While i didn't and still struggle to understand these lines, all i grasped was the Oneida delegates' negative decision for the treaty based upon failure in the 19th century. Hence, the answer A that states possitive context about the Canandaigua Treaty does not appeal to me at all. (Plus, the reason why i'm obsessed with the lines of 51-53 is due to the detailed answer at the back)
The lump-sum payment looks like a substitute for what the treaty was offering, the $0.52.
If, say, you have a contract with somebody, and you change the contract, maybe various claims related to the contract might be jeopardized. (E.g., people will say, "Hey, that's not the same contract as it used to be! I'm not liable for anything now!") Same with treaties, perhaps.
If the Oneida thought that jeopardizing claims was bad, and losing their $0.52 was worse than getting $60,000, then maybe the Treaty had a positive side for them, so A is correct.
Hope this helps,