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)
25.
The author's primary purpose in ███ ███████ ██ ██
Question Type
Implied
Purpose of passage
In a Phenomenon-Hypothesis passage, if the author proposes a hypothesis, the primary purpose of the passage is to propose that hypothesis. Here, the author proposes an explanation for the results of the Ultimatum Game:
a
survey existing interpretations ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████
This doesn’t capture the author’s support for the hypothesis described in P4. The author doesn’t merely describe different interpretations of the Ultimatum Game results; she favors one explanation over another.
b
show how two ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ████ █████
This doesn’t capture the author’s support for the hypothesis described in P4. In addition, the author doesn’t suggest that the hypotheses in P3 and P4 can go together; she favors the hypothesis in P4 over the one in P3.
c
argue that the ███████ ██ ██ ███████████ █████ █████████ ███ █████
This doesn’t capture the author’s support for the hypothesis described in P4. In addition, the author doesn’t argue that the results of the Ultimatum Game are valid. The validity of these results is simply a baseline assumption for the discussion of competing hypotheses to explain the results.
d
offer a plausible ███████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████
This best captures the author’s purpose, which is to offer a hypothesis to explain the results of the Ultimatum Game. Those results are “puzzling” because they seem to go against what we’d expect.
e
defend an experiment ███████ █████████ ████ ██████████████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████
There is no criticism of the Ultimatum Game described. So there is no defense against criticism, either. Because (E) doesn’t occur, it can’t be the author’s purpose.