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
25.
The passage can be most ββββββββββ βββββββββ ββ
Question Type
Describe organization
Structure
The passage is primarily a report on recent investigations into the psychology of decision-making. Itβs not clear that we can anticipate something more specific before going to the answers.
Thereβs no indication that the decisions at issue are βcollectiveβ decisions (made by a group).
b
a presentation of β βββββββββββββ ββββββββββ βββββ ββ ββββ βββββββββ ββ β βββββββββ ββββ ββββ
The author doesnβt present any test cases to evaluate a hypothesis. The reference to Britain and Argentina and the Falkland islands is offered as an example of a situation the author believes shows that nations can be influenced by the perception of having lost something. But the author isnβt testing a hypothesis out using this historical example; the author has already through their view and is presenting the example as support for the view.
c
a suggestion that βββββββββββββ ββββββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββ βββββ ββββββββ
If anything, this is reversed. The author suggests certain scholars of international conflict should incorporate the findings of psychologists.
d
an examination of ββββ βββ βββββββββββββ ββββββββββββββ βββββββββ ββββ βββ βββββ βββββββββββ ββ βββββββ βββββ ββ βββββββ
This is the best answer. The passage examines new psychological considerations (from βrecent investigations) regarding risk and their application to another field of inquiry (the field of international conflict and crisis).
e
a summary of βββ ββββββββ βββββββ βββ βββββββββββββ βββββββββββββ ββββββ βββ βββββββββ
The author doesnβt summarize two possible ways to understand international conflicts. The author describes the previously accepted view about decision-making and reports on a new finding that is relevant to international conflict. But this just involves the inclusion of additional factors that are likely part of decision-making; this doesnβt constitute a separate way to understand international conflicts.
Difficulty
68% of people who answer get this correct
This is a moderately difficult question.
It is significantly easier than other questions in this passage.
CURVE
Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right
25%142
152
75%163
Analysis
Describe organization
Structure
Science
Single position
Answer Popularity
PopularityAvg. score
a
14%
155
b
13%
157
c
3%
153
d
68%
161
e
2%
154
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.