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. βββ
Intro to Topic Β·Recent psychology findings are interesting for political scientists
The political scientists are trying to understand why governments take unreasonable risks.
Recent Findings Β·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.
Previous Theory Β·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 Β·$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 Β·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.
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.
One country takes valuable territory from another country. The first country faces a risk of failure, but this risk is βeasily tolerableβ in the long run. What is the author likely to say about this situation? Itβs hard to anticipate the correct answer. Weβll probably have to rely on process of elimination
This is supported, because the previously accepted theory about risk-taking involves the assumption that actors βwill 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.β Here, weβre told that the territory seized has βgreat mineral wealthβ β thatβs evidence of a lot of value from seizing the territory. In addition, the risk is βeasily tolerableβ; so the action wasnβt very risky. The country that seized the territory was not acting in a way that goes against the previously accepted views of risk-taking.
Anti-supported. The country from whom land was seized probably views the territory taken as more valuable than they would have if they were the country that seized the land.
The research described doesnβt involve making judgments about what kind of objective is actually worth or not worth the risk. The research concerns how nations think about decisions; it doesnβt support judgments about what is objectively a good or bad decision.
Not supported, because the country could be motivated simply by weighing benefits and risks. The benefit is high, because thereβs great mineral wealth in the territory. The risks are minimal. We donβt need to cite other considerations to explain why the country acted the way it did.
Not supported, because the country could be motivated simply by weighing benefits and risks. The benefit is high, because thereβs great mineral wealth in the territory. The risks are minimal. We donβt need to cite other considerations, such as the perception that the land was previously taken from it, to explain why the country acted the way it did.
Difficulty
44% of people who answer get this correct
This is a very difficult question.
It is similar in difficulty to other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%152
163
75%175
Analysis
Application
Science
Single position
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
44%
163
b
11%
155
c
16%
156
d
17%
158
e
12%
158
Question history
You don't have any history with this question.. yet!
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account belowβit only takes a minuteβand then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account belowβit only takes a minuteβand then youβre free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account belowβit only takes a minuteβand then youβre free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.