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.
Passage Style
Single position
Analysis by Kevin_Lin
24.
It can most reasonably be ββββββββ ββββ βββ βββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββ βββββ βββββ ββββ βββββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββββ βββββββββββ
Question Type
Authorβs perspective
Implied
Weβll have to use process of elimination, because the correct answer could find support from anywhere in the passage.
Supported by the fact that the author believes the observations in P2 βare quite salient to scholars of international conflict and crisis.β If the author didnβt believe that government decision-makers evaluate national risks in a similar manner to how they evaluate personal risk, then the example in P2, which concerns personal decision-making, wouldnβt be relevant to scholars of international conflict.
The author doesnβt present any βnewβ method for predicting and mediating international conflict. Although the author does identify certain factors that might bear upon government decision-making, that doesnβt constitute a method for predicting and mediating international conflict.
The author doesnβt suggest that rational decision-making is rare in international crises; the author simply presents research showing that decision-makers sometimes consider other factors besides a theoretical cost-benefit analysis.
The author never suggests that people are more likely to take big risks when their assessment of benefits βmatchesβ objectively measured costs. Rather, people are more likely to take big risks when their subjective assessment of benefits is high enough to justify their subject assessment of potential costs.
Difficulty
41% 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%151
166
75%180
Analysis
Authorβs perspective
Authorβs perspective
Stems that ask us to find an answer the author is most likely to agree with.
Implied
Implied
Stems asking us to infer an idea implied by the claims in the passage (as opposed to identifying an idea that appears explicitly). Similar to most strongly supported questions in LR.
Science
Science
Passages with subject matter centered on science (biology, physics, chemistry, etc.)
Single position
Single position
Passages that develop one perspective on the central topic.
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
5%
159
b
41%
162
c
10%
160
d
11%
158
e
33%
157
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!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
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.