Self-study
P1
In an experiment, two strangers are given the opportunity to share $100, subject to the following constraints: One person—the "proposer"—is to suggest how to divide the money and can make only one such proposal. ███ █████ ████████████ ██████████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████████████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ███████ ████ ███████ █████████
Experiment ·
The Ultimatum Game
Two players can split $100. One player proposes how to split. The other player decides to accept or reject. If accept, the split is as proposed. If reject, both parties get nothing.
P2
████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ █ ████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ █ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ███
Results ·
Many offer to split 50/50 because it's "fair"
Results ·
Most offer to split a bit less than 50/50
Presumably the proposer thinks this is still within the realm of "fair." I get 60, you get 40. Still fair, right?
Results / Puzzling Phenomenon ·
A few offer less than 20% and most responders reject that offer
But why would they reject? Even if the offer is low, accepting means getting something (e.g., $20) whereas rejecting means getting nothing.
P3
████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████████████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██████ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ███████ ███
Hypothesis ·
In-group support
The offer of a fair division is based on our ancestor's need for the support of a strong small group and so we want to treat each other fairly.
Critique ·
But this explains the wrong phenomenon.
We're not trying to explain the "fair" or "fair-ish" offers. We're trying to explain the "unfair" rejections.
P4
█ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ████████ █████████ █████████████ ███
Explanation ·
Our emotions are not evolved for one-time anonymous interations
Not sure what this means but will keep reading.
Explanation Details ·
Our emotions are evolved for repeated public interactions
We have a reputation to maintain. If we accept an "unfair" offer, then we are advertising to our social group that we can be treated unfairly. Hence, we instinctively reject such offers. Even though in the instance of the experiment, rejecting makes no sense and is actually to our detriment.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)
26.
Which one of the following █████████ █████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████
a
Contrary to the ███████████ ██ ███████████ ██████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████████
There’s no suggestion the author would agree with (A), because the author isn’t trying to question the assumption that humans act primarily out of self-interest. Although the author discusses experiment results that are unexpected based on that assumption, the author does not draw the conclusion that the experiment shows that assumption is wrong. Since we don’t have any reason to think the author agrees with (A), it doesn’t fit at the end of the passage.
b
Unfortunately, one-time, anonymous ████████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ ████████
The word “unfortunately” doesn’t fit at the end of the passage, because the author never suggests that there is something undesirable about one-time, anonymous interactions.
c
The instinctive urge ██ ███████ █ █████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████
This is the most logical completion, because it provides additional reason to think the hypothesis the author offers in P4 is a plausible explanation for the results of the Ultimatum Game. Remember, the Ultimatum Game involves people making offers and people accepting or rejecting offers. In P4, the author discusses how the way we evolved might explain why we reject low offers. But it never connects the way we evolved to why many people make fair offers. If the author believes the hypothesis in P4 is a more compelling explanation for the results of the Ultimatum Game than the hypothesis in P3, then that suggests the author believes the hypothesis in P4 also explains the way people make offers in the Ultimatum Game.
d
High self-esteem and █ ████████ ██████████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ████████ ██ █████
This doesn’t fit at the end, because we have no reason to believe the author thinks high self-esteem and a positive reputation offer “many other benefits” to people living in small groups. The author believes the way we evolved in small groups shapes our emotions. That’s the only way in which small groups are relevant to the author’s argument. Whatever other benefits might result from being in a small group don’t relate to the way our evolving in a small group explains the Ultimatum Game results.
e
The behavior of ████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████ █ ██████ █████████
This doesn’t fit at the end, because the author doesn’t show any concern for the question of what constitutes “fair.” The author cares about what explains why people behave the way they do in the Ultimatum Game, not with what kinds of resource splits are fair or unfair.