#26 - Author's Perspective

[emekj]

Hi
I am so confused by question 26.
The correct answer (c) states that "it can be reasonably argued that the risk that Britain accepted in its 1982 conflict outweighed the potential objectively measurable benefit of that venture". I believe that the reason this is correct is that in the passage when the example of the Britain/ Argentina conflict of 1982 was mentioned, it was brought up in the context of states taking risks that outweigh the value of lost assets. So even though the description of the 1982 conflict did not itself bring up the risk/benefit of the conflict, we know that the risks did in fact outweigh the reward simply because the author used the 1982 conflict as an example of such a circumstance?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Emekj,

Yes! You hit the nail on the head. The author brinks up the Falkland Islands conflict as an example of the phenomenon discussed in the previous paragraph, that is, people are willing to take substantial risks to recover something they believe they have lost. Thus, instead of accepting the certain loss (the Falklands), Argentina and Great Britain committed to a much more risky enterprise in armed conflict over the islands. It is likely the author would agree that both countries were motivated by the kind of loss-aversion/risk-acceptance psychology discussed in the preceding paragraph, since the author makes explicit in line 43 that this conflict is an example of the phenomenon.

Good job!