PT113.S1.P4.Q23 > Analytics

Hide analysis

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.

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.

████ ████████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███

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

23.

The question in the second ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ █████████ █████████ ██

Question Type

Purpose in context (of word, phrase, or idea)

Structure

Think about the sentence before and after the question for help in identifying the purpose. The question is part of an example that shows how the previously held view about rational decision-making works. With the choice between gambling for a chance to lose or win money, people do want the potential benefit to be high in order to take the risk of loss.

the introduction to █ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ █████████ ██████

No support for the claim that the author “expects [the results] will vary widely among different people.” In fact, the author says that research subjects “do, in fact, commonly judge that a 50 percent chance to lose $100 is unacceptable unless it is combined with an equal chance to win more than $300.” There’s no suggestion the author thinks people have widely different opinions about this.

a rhetorical question █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████

No support for the claim that the “assumed answer is in conflict with the previously accepted view concerning risk-taking behavior.” In fact, the answer to how people behave fits the previously accepted view, and there’s no indication that this is something unexpected. What’s unexpected is how some nations behave, as described later in the passage.

25%

the basis for ██ ████████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ██████████

This accurately describes the purpose. The question is part of an example showing how the previously accepted view about risk-taking behavior / rational decision-making applies. The way people behave in the gambling situation adheres to the previously accepted view.

63%

a suggestion that ███ █████████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ████

The author never suggests that the difference between subjective valuations and objective valuations are illusory. The idea that there might not actually be a difference between the two isn’t brought up in connection with the question related to the gambling example.

a transitional device ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ████████ ████████

The question is part of a description of how the previous theory works. In addition, there’s no indication that there is other research that reached findings that were previously unaccepted. There may be findings that go against the prevailing view, but that doesn’t mean the findings were not accepted.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 113 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 23

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 113 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 23

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?