#24 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[est15]

Hi, I'm not sure why C is wrong. I thought that evidence for C was located in paragraph 3. I'm also not sure why B is correct - it seemed too big of a leap for me to say that evaluating risks involving national assets was similar to risks involving personal assets.

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, est15,

This is a very abstract question, so don't worry about having trouble with it.

The problem is that the passage doesn't actually talk about a method for mediating conflicts, just an understanding of the motivations behind them. Answer choice B is supported by showing that the same psychology underlies the evaluation of national and personal assets both, in the sense that both decisions involve being cautious about loss but reckless about recovering losses.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[chian9010]

Dear Powerscore,

I don't understand why D) is wrong.From the first sentence in the last paragraph it indicates that "Some observation are quite salient to scholars of international conflict and crisis." Doesnt it mean truly rational decision making is a rare phenomenon?

[Adam Tyson]

That answer first requires that you assume that the type of risk-taking decisions being made by government decision makers, as described in the stimulus, are NOT "truly rational" decisions, chian9010, and I am not sure you can make that assumption here. The author never tells us that the strategies being used to weigh risk are not rational!

But then keep reading that answer, because it gets worse. Is there any evidence in the passage that "truly rational" decisions (whatever those are) can lead to severe consequences? That's where answer D goes completely off the rails, because there is no evidence of such consequences resulting from any kind of rare type of decision.

Be sure to read each answer all the way through! Some answers start off looking good, and then go bad at the end. Finishing the answer should ensure that you don't pick one of those.

[hassan66]

Hi,

I was skeptical of C because of the "predicting and meditating" part of the AC. But can C also be wrong because this isn't necessarily a synthesis of economics and psychology? Or is it? I thought that they discussed rational choices and used a economics type way of demonstrating the implications of a psychological theory and that the mention of economics in the AC was just a way to throw you off/trick you.

Can C be eliminated for this reason as well?

[Brook Miscoski]

hassan66,

(C) can be eliminated because the stimulus does not indicate that "a new method...has emerged," rather only that there is growing interest in the subject area. I believe that's what you're saying--a new inquiry has emerged, but not a way of predicting and mediating.

(C) can also be eliminated because the passage doesn't synthesize economics and sociology. Instead, the passage indicates that the old theory (the economics fiction of the rational decision maker) is not as helpful as sociology (an actual science that bases conclusions about human behavior on actual data). In that sense, you are correct that talking about a synthesis of economics and sociology is just to attract your attention since the passage did mention those subject areas.

[ashpine17]

what is wrong with E? is it because this is not contrary?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi ashpine,

The problem with Answer E isn't that the answer is contrary to previous assumptions, but that the author wouldn't agree with this statement.

In lines 17-24, the passage states "previously, the notion that rational decision makers prefer risk-avoiding choices was considered to apply generally, epitomized by the assumption of many economists that entrepreneurs and consumers will choose a risky venture over a sure thing only when the expected measurable value of the outcome is sufficiently high to compensate the decision maker for taking the risk." This sentence is a description of the previous assumptions mentioned in Answer E.

The author doesn't disagree with this statement. The author agrees with this statement for the most part and provides the example that people generally would only be willing to gamble losing $100 for a 50% chance of winning at least $300.

Where the author does modify the previous sentiment begins in line 35, "Nevertheless, the recent studies indicate that risk-accepting strategies are common when the alternative to a sure loss is a substantial chance of losing an even larger amount, coupled with some chance-even a small one-of losing nothing." In other words, because people really hate to lose anything, they will risk a lot to try to prevent a loss even if the odds are not in their favor. This situation, however, is not what Answer E is describing and not what the author states.