PT131.S4.P4.Q27 > Analytics

passage 4

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.

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.

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.

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)

Analysis by Kevin_Lin

27.

In the context of the ████████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ████

Question Type

Author’s perspective

Implied

The author criticizes the explanation in P3 because it doesn’t explain why people reject low offers. So the author would consider the explanation more favorably if it does explain why people reject low offers. Let’s look for an answer that helps connect the explanation offered in P3 to why we reject low offers in the Ultimatum Game.

our prehistoric ancestors █████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███████ ██████

in many prehistoric █████████ █████ ████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███

(B) asserts that many prehistoric cultures had ways of determining what’s fair and not fair. But it’s not clear how this shows that the explanation in P3 can account for rejection of low offers. (B) might establish that people reject low offers because it doesn’t fit with what our prehistoric hierarchies have determined were fair. But this has nothing to do with the explanation in P3, which is based on the need for the strength of our group, or on competion with rivals in our group.

it is just ██ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ █████ ██████ ██████

it is just ██ █████████████████ ██ █ █████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ █████ ██████

This is the only answer that helps connect an aspect of the explanation in P3 to our rejection of low offers. According to the explanation in P3, it’s counterproductive to outcompete others in our group, because we might not be able to depend on them anymore. This shows why we might like to make relatively large offers in the Ultimatum Game. (D), if true, establishes that it’s equally counterproductive to “allow oneself to be outcompeted” by others in our group — this might be why we react by rejecting low offers. If we accept a low offer, we’re being outcompeted by someone else. No other answer helps to show why the explanation in P3 might account for rejection of low offers.

in many social ███████ █████ ██ █ ██████ █████████████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██████

PrepTest 131 - Section 4 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action