Final answer:
While it is true that deal-breakers can lead to an impasse in negotiations resulting in the status quo prevailing or rejection of proposals, it is not accurate to say that anything outside the bargaining range will always be rejected. Negotiations are flexible, and strategies can shift the bargaining space, much like in the goods market where buyers might pay over the equilibrium price.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that anything outside the bargaining range will be summarily rejected by one of the negotiators is not entirely true. In the context of political negotiations, there may be fixed points or deal-breakers where no common ground can be established, such as when one party wants to raise taxes and the other wants to lower them. In such cases, the status quo persists.
However, negotiations are dynamic, and the bargaining range might be adjusted as parties use different strategies like persuasion, bargaining, or even force to shift the opposing party's stances. The notion that something outside the initial bargaining range will always be rejected doesn't account for the potential for change within the negotiation process. This fluidity is also seen in the goods market, where buyers might pay more than the equilibrium price due to factors like perceived value, urgency, or product differentiation.