#26 - Must Be True, Expansion

[est15]

Can you explain why C is correct rather than E? My problem with C was that it didn't sound like a conclusion for the entirety of the passage since the question asks for the conclusion of the final paragraph of the passage. To me, C sounds like it's introducing a last-minute statement. E sounds more like a final concluding sentence that captures what the passage is about. Thanks.

[David Boyle]

Can you explain why C is correct rather than E? My problem with C was that it didn't sound like a conclusion for the entirety of the passage since the question asks for the conclusion of the final paragraph of the passage. To me, C sounds like it's introducing a last-minute statement. E sounds more like a final concluding sentence that captures what the passage is about. Thanks.

Hello est15,

Answer C goes best with the last sentence of the stimulus, about reputation. Answer E does sound sort of nice as a conclusion, but that does not mean it goes well with the last sentence of the stimulus. (Besides, "The behavior of participants in the Ultimatum Game sheds light on the question of what constitutes a "fair" division." is maybe a little bit too broad an observation. Actually, answer C says something that is similar to answer E, but in a more narrow, focused, and supportable way.)

Hope this helps,
David

[Oakenshield]

Hello staff,
I feel so confused about the question stem:which would most logically conclude....
Is it different from "which would logically summarize"? I think the latter one asks us to summarize the whole paragraph (I think E really did it.), whereas the former one asks to find one sentence that can be put at the end of the paragraph (i.e. we have to find a answer choice closely related to the last sentence of the fourth paragraph).

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Oakenshield,

Excellent question. Actually (E) does not logically summarize the final paragraph. Neither the passage as a whole nor the last paragraph is concerned with discerning "what is fair;" instead the passage addresses the underlying motives that prompt "proposers" and "responders" to act in the manner in which they do. In your hypothetical scenario of a logical summary of the final paragraph, you have to consider what role this paragraph plays in the overall purpose of the passage.

Now with respect to this question ("logically conclude the final paragraph"), to generate a good prephrase for a question that asks you to extrapolate or expand, you also must have a solid grasp of the overall main point/primary purpose of the passage. Your prephrase (1) must follow the "train of thought" from the preceding sentences and (2) relate to the overall main point.

In other words, consider what the author is trying to accomplish. In the passage, the author attempts to explain the behavior of the participants in the experiment by referring to possible evolutionary advantages conferred by their otherwise somewhat inscrutable behavior. The final paragraph addresses how the behavior of the responders relates to this evolutionary advantage; to (1) add to the discussion in the final paragraph and (2) relate it to the main point, you should envisage the missing part of the discussion, i.e. how the behavior of the proposers also fits this model. Thus you arrive at a strong prephrase that matches answer C.

[Rita]

Hi,

Could you please explain why D is incorrect? I thought it was the better answer because it looped in the concept of 'self esteem', which was introduced somewhat randomly at the end of the passage. Also, by tying self-esteem and positive reputation back to the idea of evolutionary benefits accrued to people living in small groups, I thought it stayed within the subject matter of the fourth paragraph.

C, by contrast, returned to the topic of the third paragraph, so I thought it was less of a strong conclusion for paragraph four. Could you explain why C is really the better choice?

Thanks,
Rita

[Adam Tyson]

My problem with answer D, Rita, is that it brings in a new idea that hasn't got any obvious support elsewhere in the passage. What are these other benefits that supposedly flow from high self-esteem and positive reputation? If that was the end of the paragraph (as opposed to the first sentence of a new paragraph), we would be left wondering what these other benefits are, and why the author neglected to tell us more about them. It would be more of a tease than a conclusion, wouldn't it?

Answer C brings up nothing new, but instead ties up a loose end from earlier in the passage, relating the ideas of the last paragraph back to earlier ideas, strengthening the author's claim about the possible evolutionary origin of this type of behavior. That makes it a much tidier way to end the paragraph, and possibly the entire article.

When picking one of these "extended reasoning" answers, be sure that whatever you pick continues the ideas already discussed but doesn't bring up new ones. It must remain in keeping with the main point and tone of the passage as a whole, and should usually relate back to information presented previously in a sensible way, supported by the evidence in the passage.

[Rita]

Thanks Adam! That makes a lot more sense.

[benndur]

Hi PowerScore,

This problem was confusing to me, mainly because of answer C.

A. "Contrary to the assumptions of theoretical economics, human beings do not act primarily out of self-interest."
-> Clearly wrong because the passage explains how this experiment shows the seemingly illogical behaviour is actually out of self interest

B. "Unfortunately, one-time, anonymous interactions are becoming increasingly common in contemporary society"
-> Wrong, since the entire paragraph is about explaining the evolutionary basis for the seemingly illogical behaviour, not extrapolating or talking about how it is relevant today.

C. "The instinctive urge to acquire a favorable reputation may also help to explain the desire of many proposers in the Ultimatum Game to make “fair” offers."
-> This the correct answer, but I immediately ruled it out because the relevant section of the passage states:

"Therefore, we respond emotionally to low offers in the Ultimatum Game because we instinctively feel the need to reject dismal offers in order to keep our self-esteem. This self-esteem helps us to acquire a reputation that is beneficial in future encounters."

The way I understood this is that there is an instinctive urge to reject dismal offers, and thus keep self-esteem. Thus, the instinctive urge is to maintain our self-esteem, not to acquire a favorable reputation. The self-esteem helps to acquire a reputation that is beneficial, but according to what the passage says, a favorable reputation is not what one feels an instinctive urge towards, the urge is towards preserving our self-esteem.

Thus, the way it is written, it seems to me that the instinct is to preserve self-esteem, and that the increased propensity to have a beneficial reputation is merely a consequence of this instinct, and not the instinct itself.

Because of this I ruled out this answer as being wrong immediately since "The instinctive urge to acquire a favorable reputation" seemed inherently incorrect.

D. High self-esteem and a positive reputation offer individuals living in small groups many other benefits as well.
-> This I ruled out due to it being the start of a new idea, which obviously does not logically work as a conclusion.

E. The behavior of participants in the Ultimatum Game sheds light on the question of what constitutes a “fair” division.
-> Wrong since it would only work as a conclusion of the entire passage, instead of the final paragraph.

Can anyone shed some light on where I am misguided in my thinking/understanding?
Is it only an acceptable answer because it says, "most logically concludes" and therefore is the most correct despite being incorrect? Or is the answer not incorrect at all and my thinking is flawed?
If so, is intentionally written to mislead the reader into thinking it's wrong? Or is there any chance this was a small mistake? Overall this question felt way more difficult than questions like 20/21.

Thanks for any help.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Benndur!

The passage actually discusses both the phenomena of maintaining self esteem (from the perspective of the "responder") and acquiring a favorable reputation (from the perspective of the "proposer").

For further evidence about the instinct to have a favorable reputation, see lines 28-37 "Some theorists explain the insistence on fair divisions in the Ultimatum Game by citing our prehistoric ancestors’ need for the support of a strong group. Small groups of hunter-gatherers depended for survival on their members’ strengths. It is counterproductive to outcompete rivals within one’s group to the point where one can no longer depend on them in contests with other groups. But this hypothesis at best explains why proposers offer large amounts, not why responders reject low offers."

Evolutionarily, maintaining positive relationships and a good reputation with those beneath you when you are in a position of power has been advantageous.

What answer choice C does is bring in a premise mentioned earlier on in the passage, and conclude by wrapping up instinctive urges on behalf of both parties involved in the Ultimatum Game to explain their respective behavioral tendencies.

I hope this helps!

[benndur]

Hi Amber!

Sorry for the late reply, didn't see your response.

I did recognize the different perspectives and also notice the section you quoted. It makes complete sense how maintaining good relationships with those around you, especially in the small tribes that we evolved in would have been beneficial.

It also makes sense that C) in general is a good as a conclusion to the passage. The main issue I had was C) 's usage of the phrase "instinctive urge to acquire a favorable reputation" which I did not believe was consistent with what was mentioned in the passage.

The word instinct or its forms was only used twice in the entire passage:

1) Many participants in the
role of the proposer seem instinctively to feel that
they should offer 50 percent to the responder, because
such a division is “fair” and therefore likely to be
accepted.

2) Therefore, we respond
emotionally to low offers in the Ultimatum Game
because we instinctively feel the need to reject dismal
offers in order to keep our self-esteem. This
self-esteem helps us to acquire a reputation that is
beneficial in future encounters.

In neither of these is any :instinctive urge to acquire a favorable reputation" outlined or described.

1) Suggests that there is an instinct to make fair offers, but only because they are more likely to be accepted. Clearly this isn't "an instinctive urge to acquire a favorable reputation" but rather one to make offers that the other party has a high chance of undertaking.

2) As I mentioned in my original comment, the instinct here is to reject dismal offers. This instinct to reject unfair offers leads to self-esteem, which helps one gain a beneficial reputation, but again it is not equivalent to "an instinct urge to acquire a favorable reputation"

For further evidence about the instinct to have a favorable reputation, see lines 28-37 "Some theorists explain the insistence on fair divisions in the Ultimatum Game by citing our prehistoric ancestors’ need for the support of a strong group. Small groups of hunter-gatherers depended for survival on their members’ strengths. It is counterproductive to outcompete rivals within one’s group to the point where one can no longer depend on them in contests with other groups. But this hypothesis at best explains why proposers offer large amounts, not why responders reject low offers."

The section that you've quoted here also does not describe any instinct or establish that there even is an instinct; it only explains why such an instinct might exist. It says that there is an insistence on fair divisions, and that there is a need for the support of a strong group, but nothing about instinct.