Self-study
P1
Recent investigations into the psychology of decision making have sparked interest among scholars seeking to understand why governments sometimes take gambles that appear theoretically unjustifiable on the basis of expected costs and benefits. ███
Intro to Topic ·
Recent psychology findings are interesting for political scientists
The political scientists are trying to understand why governments take unreasonable risks.
Recent Findings ·
Risk-taking is common strategy to avoid loss
People's subjective value can be significantly different from objective value. This is might be explained by loss aversion, the idea that being in possession of something makes that thing subjectively worth more to me than it's objectively worth. For example, if I stand to lose something that I already own, I will take risks to avoid that loss. But, if I stand to gain that same thing, I won't be equally likely to take risks.
P2
███████████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ █████████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██████ █ █████ ███████ ████ █ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███
Previous Theory ·
Risk-avoidance is the generally applicable strategy
Previously, the theory was that people prefer to be risk-avoiding, not risk-taking. If fact, they would need sufficiently high payoff to compensate for taking the risk.
Example ·
$300 is the minimum payoff for 50% chance of willing the payoff or losing $100
Even though, rationally, any amount more than $100 yields positive expected value. For example, I'd take the gamble if the payoff was $101. Half the time I lose $100 but the other half I gain $101. So each time I play, I expect to gain $0.50. But most people won't even play for $200 or $250. They need the payoff to be $300 in order to play. That's how much they hate taking a risk. This illustrates the theory that people prefer risk-avoidance.
Challenge: Recent Findings ·
Risk-taking is common strategy to avoid loss
If the choice is between (1) a sure loss or (2) a significant chance of losing even more + a small chance of losing nothing, then the preference is for the risk-taking choice.
P3
████ ████████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███
Application ·
Recent findings of risk-taking as applied to international politics
Example ·
Falkland Islands / Malvinas
Both Britain and Argentina was faced with choosing between (1) a sure loss of the island or (2) a significant chance of an even greater loss (war) + a small chance of no loss (get to keep the island). They made the risk-taking choice. Each party's subjective value of the island was greater than the objective value.
Passage Style
Single position
26.
The passage most clearly suggests ████ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
Researchers have previously ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████████ █████████
Not supported. The author doesn’t suggest that there’s any reason to doubt the claims made by subjects in tests about decision-making or that researchers have trusted those claims too much.
b
There is inadequate ████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ███████ █████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████████
Anti-supported, because the author never suggests that there isn’t enough support for the view that people generally prefer to avoid risk. In fact, P2 involves an example that supports that view.
c
It can reasonably ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ████ █████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████
Supported, because the author presents the Falkland Islands example as a situation in which states can
d
The new findings ███████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████████ ████████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██████ ████████████████ ██ ███████ ██████████
Not supported, because it’s too strong. The author never suggests anything cannot be comprehended by outside observers. The decision-making factors might be more complicated than outside observers might realize, but that doesn’t imply that it’s impossible for outside observers to understand these decisions.
e
Moderate risks in █████ █████████ ███████████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ████████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████████
This isn’t supported, because although the end of P2 discusses how people decide when they’re faced with a sure loss vs. a chance of a larger loss vs. a chance of no loss, this study doesn’t “diverge markedly” from the reasoning involved in the general tendency to avoid risk. Also, this study doesn’t actually involve “unavoidable losses” – there’s a chance of no loss, so loss isn’t unavoidable.