GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 15 Nov 2018, 15:13

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
  • GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     11:00 AM PST

    Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2113
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jul 2018, 10:47
3
6
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 224 sessions

72% (03:00) correct 28% (03:04) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 231 sessions

69% (01:08) correct 31% (01:31) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 225 sessions

50% (00:46) correct 50% (00:51) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

based on 222 sessions

68% (00:45) correct 32% (01:04) wrong

HideShow timer Statistics

Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished. It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoner’s dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience. One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.

In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions. The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.

1. The passage suggests that Anatol Rapoport won the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments because
A. Anatol deployed Tit for tat while his rivals did not.
B. Anatol was able to tie with each one of his rivals.
C. The tournaments were not scored as a winner take all contest but ranked contestants by the sum of their scores.
D. The tournament was based on a classic prisoner’s dilemma principle, one that Anatol may have been well versed with.
E. Anatol was able to ensure that all his rivals cooperate with him in each of the games he played.


2. What can be inferred about the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?
A. The tournaments were designed to prove the efficacy of the prisoner’s dilemma.
B. None of the participants were as smart as Anatol who won the tournament both times.
C. The winner might have been different the second time had the scoring been changed to winner takes all method.
D. There were many candidates who may have been extremely close to Anatol in terms of total number of points.
E. The first iteration included domestic participants while the second iteration included more global participation.



3. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with
A. Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.
B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.
C. Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.
D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.
E. Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.



4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is
A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.
B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.
C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.
D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.
E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.


_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Most Helpful Expert Reply
MBA Section Director
User avatar
D
Affiliations: GMATClub
Joined: 22 May 2017
Posts: 968
Concentration: Nonprofit
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2018, 22:19
1
1. The passage suggests that Anatol Rapoport won the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments because


A. Anatol deployed Tit for tat while his rivals did not.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage didn't mention anything about the strategies employed by other players. It only mentioned that Anatol employed Tit-fot-Tat strategy and won

B. Anatol was able to tie with each one of his rivals.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions a scenario where a player may get tied but it is not about the results of Anatol's play with rivals.

C. The tournaments were not scored as a winner take all contest but ranked contestants by the sum of their scores.

CORRECT. Option C can be inferred from the lines "In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. " and "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. The tournament was based on a classic prisoner’s dilemma principle, one that Anatol may have been well versed with.

INCORRECT Out of context. This statement is true. But it is not the reason why Anatol won. Anatol would have won if it were scored differently as stated in the passage

E. Anatol was able to ensure that all his rivals cooperate with him in each of the games he played.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions co-operation aspect as one of the advantages of the Tit-for-Tat strategy. This is not the reason why Anatol won the competition.

2. What can be inferred about the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?


A. The tournaments were designed to prove the efficacy of the prisoner’s dilemma.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage doesn't discuss the efficacy of the prisoner's dilemma

B. None of the participants were as smart as Anatol who won the tournament both times.

INCORRECT Out of scope. Smartness of contestants has not been discussed in the passage.

C. The winner might have been different the second time had the scoring been changed to winner takes all method.

Correct This can be inferred from the lines "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. There were many candidates who may have been extremely close to Anatol in terms of total number of points.

INCORRECT Out of context. The passage doesn't comment on the scores of other contestants.

E. The first iteration included domestic participants while the second iteration included more global participation.

INCORRECT Out of scope. There is no information on the contestants being domestic or global.

3. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with


A. Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.

INCORRECT Partial scope. The head-on strategy has been mentioned only in a part of the passage.

B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.

Correct Pros are discussed in the first paragraph and cons are discussed in the second paragraph.

C. Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention that Tit-for-Tat works well in business.

D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.

INCORRECT The two examples presented are not compared and contrasted.

E. Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention about the long-term comparative advantage.

4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is


A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.

INCORRECT When Soviet wiretapped and spies, US responeded by reducing diplomats. They both didn't aid spying and wiretapping.

B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.

Correct

C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.

INCORRECT Only soviet cut the support staff.

D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.

INCORRECT The presence of the word "qualified" makes this option incorrect. They didn't have enough diplomats to carry out the diplomatic functions.

E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.

INCORRECT Out of scope. This behaviour is not discussed in the passage.
_________________

If you like my post press kudos +1

New project wSTAT(which Schools To Apply To?)

New - RC Butler - 2 RC's everyday

General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Posts: 15
CAT Tests
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jul 2018, 20:51
1
4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is
A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.
B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.
C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.
D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.
E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.

I am confused between B and D. B is more of a general answer.
Also Tit for Tat strategy can be successful or it can be a failure depending upon the method of applying it.

I feel D is more relevant as it states that the it was difficult for the counties to carry on diplomatic functions as they lacked enough qualified diplomats because of the Tit for Tat strategy. It mentions the Tit for Tat strategy application and also its effects.

Is D wrong because of the word "qualified" present in the option.

Please reply.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2018, 05:16
shweta234 wrote:
4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is
A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.
B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.
C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.
D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.
E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.

I am confused between B and D. B is more of a general answer.
Also Tit for Tat strategy can be successful or it can be a failure depending upon the method of applying it.

I feel D is more relevant as it states that the it was difficult for the counties to carry on diplomatic functions as they lacked enough qualified diplomats because of the Tit for Tat strategy. It mentions the Tit for Tat strategy application and also its effects.

Is D wrong because of the word "qualified" present in the option.

Please reply.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Posts: 169
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V32
GPA: 4
Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2018, 00:00
4
A fairly easy passage, took me 4 minutes, including reading time.

Quote:
3. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with
A. Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.
B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.
C. Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.
D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.
E. Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.


This one is tricky, maybe. B vs D. D is wrong. Compare and contrast gave it away.
A good trick to remember for primary purpose questions is to see if the author has an opinion in the passage or not. If he/she doesn't, then options starting with discussing, evaluating, comparing etc would be wrong, because to discuss, evaluate, compare etc the author needs to give his/her opinion. This strategy works well with question sub 600/650 level but may come in handy for difficult questions as well - a different version of the strategy that suits the question, but the basics remain the same.

Regards,
V
_________________

Regards,

Vaibhav



Sky is the limit. 800 is the limit.

~GMAC

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Posts: 169
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V32
GPA: 4
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2018, 00:15
1
shweta234 wrote:
4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is
A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.
B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.
C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.
D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.
E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.

I am confused between B and D. B is more of a general answer.
Also Tit for Tat strategy can be successful or it can be a failure depending upon the method of applying it.

I feel D is more relevant as it states that the it was difficult for the counties to carry on diplomatic functions as they lacked enough qualified diplomats because of the Tit for Tat strategy. It mentions the Tit for Tat strategy application and also its effects.

Is D wrong because of the word "qualified" present in the option.

Please reply.


Hi!
Adopting tit-for-tat strategy was the primary reason for the difficulty to carry out diplomatic functions.

The reason both the countries lacked diplomats because of the strategy they adopted. Lack of diplomats was an OUTCOME of the Strategy.

Consider an analogy.

You go outside to the park for a run wearing a pair of formal shoes. After the run you notice that they can no longer be used on formal occasions.
The reason why the shoes cant be used on a formal occasion is NOT that you ran with your formal shoes on, but that you decided to wear them for a run.

Hope this helps

Regards,
V
_________________

Regards,

Vaibhav



Sky is the limit. 800 is the limit.

~GMAC

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 01 Jan 2018
Posts: 120
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2018, 06:17
IMO option B and D, both are correct in question number 3.
I would appreciate if someone can explain why option D (of Q.3) is wrong.
_________________

kudos please if it helped you.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Posts: 169
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V32
GPA: 4
Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2018, 07:25
1
tamal99 wrote:
IMO option B and D, both are correct in question number 3.
I would appreciate if someone can explain why option D (of Q.3) is wrong.

Hi!
B and D, indeed are confusing and seem to be the same, however, when you read option D, it says, COMPARE AND CONTRAST. The author is not comparing and contrasting. I would suggest re reading the passage for a better understanding on the same.

Regards,
V
_________________

Regards,

Vaibhav



Sky is the limit. 800 is the limit.

~GMAC

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Nov 2016
Posts: 15
CAT Tests
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2018, 20:17
tamal99 wrote:
IMO option B and D, both are correct in question number 3.
I would appreciate if someone can explain why option D (of Q.3) is wrong.




B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.
D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.

These two options are close and earlier i was also stuck between the two. But when i read the passage second time i saw that the passage clearly mentions advantages and flaws of the strategy in 1st and 2nd para respectively. There is no sort of comparison or contrast between the two strategies anywhere in the para.

"The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation."

"In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat."

The above two small paras are extracts from the passage which clearly shows that the main idea of the passage is to show pros and cons of the strategy and not to compare or contrast the two cases.

I hope this helps :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 14 Jun 2018
Posts: 183
CAT Tests
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Aug 2018, 23:18
What is the source of this passage ?
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Posts: 797
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Premium Member
Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2018, 09:13
Great RC !!
4 minutes 22 seconds !!
all correct .
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2018
Posts: 22
Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2018, 18:02
workout wrote:
1. The passage suggests that Anatol Rapoport won the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments because


A. Anatol deployed Tit for tat while his rivals did not.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage didn't mention anything about the strategies employed by other players. It only mentioned that Anatol employed Tit-fot-Tat strategy and won

B. Anatol was able to tie with each one of his rivals.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions a scenario where a player may get tied but it is not about the results of Anatol's play with rivals.

C. The tournaments were not scored as a winner take all contest but ranked contestants by the sum of their scores.

CORRECT. Option C can be inferred from the lines "In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. " and "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. The tournament was based on a classic prisoner’s dilemma principle, one that Anatol may have been well versed with.

INCORRECT Out of context. This statement is true. But it is not the reason why Anatol won. Anatol would have won if it were scored differently as stated in the passage

E. Anatol was able to ensure that all his rivals cooperate with him in each of the games he played.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions co-operation aspect as one of the advantages of the Tit-for-Tat strategy. This is not the reason why Anatol won the competition.

2. What can be inferred about the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?


A. The tournaments were designed to prove the efficacy of the prisoner’s dilemma.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage doesn't discuss the efficacy of the prisoner's dilemma

B. None of the participants were as smart as Anatol who won the tournament both times.

INCORRECT Out of scope. Smartness of contestants has not been discussed in the passage.

C. The winner might have been different the second time had the scoring been changed to winner takes all method.

Correct This can be inferred from the lines "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. There were many candidates who may have been extremely close to Anatol in terms of total number of points.

INCORRECT Out of context. The passage doesn't comment on the scores of other contestants.

E. The first iteration included domestic participants while the second iteration included more global participation.

INCORRECT Out of scope. There is no information on the contestants being domestic or global.

3. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with


A. Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.

INCORRECT Partial scope. The head-on strategy has been mentioned only in a part of the passage.

B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.

Correct Pros are discussed in the first paragraph and cons are discussed in the second paragraph.

C. Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention that Tit-for-Tat works well in business.

D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.

INCORRECT The two examples presented are not compared and contrasted.

E. Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention about the long-term comparative advantage.

4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is


A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.

INCORRECT When Soviet wiretapped and spies, US responeded by reducing diplomats. They both didn't aid spying and wiretapping.

B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.

Correct

C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.

INCORRECT Only soviet cut the support staff.

D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.

INCORRECT The presence of the word "qualified" makes this option incorrect. They didn't have enough diplomats to carry out the diplomatic functions.

E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.

INCORRECT Out of scope. This behaviour is not discussed in the passage.



I chose option D for question 3 by focusing on this excerpt from the paragraph, "In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations", in which the word in spite of is indicating a contrast. Please explain where am I going wrong?
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Posts: 797
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Premium Member
Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2018, 22:56
MG1105 wrote:
workout wrote:
1. The passage suggests that Anatol Rapoport won the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments because


A. Anatol deployed Tit for tat while his rivals did not.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage didn't mention anything about the strategies employed by other players. It only mentioned that Anatol employed Tit-fot-Tat strategy and won

B. Anatol was able to tie with each one of his rivals.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions a scenario where a player may get tied but it is not about the results of Anatol's play with rivals.

C. The tournaments were not scored as a winner take all contest but ranked contestants by the sum of their scores.

CORRECT. Option C can be inferred from the lines "In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. " and "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. The tournament was based on a classic prisoner’s dilemma principle, one that Anatol may have been well versed with.

INCORRECT Out of context. This statement is true. But it is not the reason why Anatol won. Anatol would have won if it were scored differently as stated in the passage

E. Anatol was able to ensure that all his rivals cooperate with him in each of the games he played.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions co-operation aspect as one of the advantages of the Tit-for-Tat strategy. This is not the reason why Anatol won the competition.

2. What can be inferred about the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?


A. The tournaments were designed to prove the efficacy of the prisoner’s dilemma.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage doesn't discuss the efficacy of the prisoner's dilemma

B. None of the participants were as smart as Anatol who won the tournament both times.

INCORRECT Out of scope. Smartness of contestants has not been discussed in the passage.

C. The winner might have been different the second time had the scoring been changed to winner takes all method.

Correct This can be inferred from the lines "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. There were many candidates who may have been extremely close to Anatol in terms of total number of points.

INCORRECT Out of context. The passage doesn't comment on the scores of other contestants.

E. The first iteration included domestic participants while the second iteration included more global participation.

INCORRECT Out of scope. There is no information on the contestants being domestic or global.

3. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with


A. Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.

INCORRECT Partial scope. The head-on strategy has been mentioned only in a part of the passage.

B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.

Correct Pros are discussed in the first paragraph and cons are discussed in the second paragraph.

C. Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention that Tit-for-Tat works well in business.

D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.

INCORRECT The two examples presented are not compared and contrasted.

E. Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention about the long-term comparative advantage.

4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is


A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.

INCORRECT When Soviet wiretapped and spies, US responeded by reducing diplomats. They both didn't aid spying and wiretapping.

B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.

Correct

C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.

INCORRECT Only soviet cut the support staff.

D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.

INCORRECT The presence of the word "qualified" makes this option incorrect. They didn't have enough diplomats to carry out the diplomatic functions.

E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.

INCORRECT Out of scope. This behaviour is not discussed in the passage.



I chose option D for question 3 by focusing on this excerpt from the paragraph, "In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations", in which the word in spite of is indicating a contrast. Please explain where am I going wrong?


Hi,

The 1st para is only concerned with pros , there is no contrast -the second para on the other hand deals only with cons no pros.
when we look at the answer choice it says compare and contrast 2 scenarios , not compares the first and contrasts the second
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2018
Posts: 22
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2018, 09:28
CounterSniper wrote:
MG1105 wrote:
workout wrote:
1. The passage suggests that Anatol Rapoport won the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments because


A. Anatol deployed Tit for tat while his rivals did not.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage didn't mention anything about the strategies employed by other players. It only mentioned that Anatol employed Tit-fot-Tat strategy and won

B. Anatol was able to tie with each one of his rivals.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions a scenario where a player may get tied but it is not about the results of Anatol's play with rivals.

C. The tournaments were not scored as a winner take all contest but ranked contestants by the sum of their scores.

CORRECT. Option C can be inferred from the lines "In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. " and "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. The tournament was based on a classic prisoner’s dilemma principle, one that Anatol may have been well versed with.

INCORRECT Out of context. This statement is true. But it is not the reason why Anatol won. Anatol would have won if it were scored differently as stated in the passage

E. Anatol was able to ensure that all his rivals cooperate with him in each of the games he played.

INCORRECT Out of context. The author mentions co-operation aspect as one of the advantages of the Tit-for-Tat strategy. This is not the reason why Anatol won the competition.

2. What can be inferred about the two-person prisoner’s dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?


A. The tournaments were designed to prove the efficacy of the prisoner’s dilemma.

INCORRECT Out of scope. The passage doesn't discuss the efficacy of the prisoner's dilemma

B. None of the participants were as smart as Anatol who won the tournament both times.

INCORRECT Out of scope. Smartness of contestants has not been discussed in the passage.

C. The winner might have been different the second time had the scoring been changed to winner takes all method.

Correct This can be inferred from the lines "if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won."

D. There were many candidates who may have been extremely close to Anatol in terms of total number of points.

INCORRECT Out of context. The passage doesn't comment on the scores of other contestants.

E. The first iteration included domestic participants while the second iteration included more global participation.

INCORRECT Out of scope. There is no information on the contestants being domestic or global.

3. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with


A. Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.

INCORRECT Partial scope. The head-on strategy has been mentioned only in a part of the passage.

B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.

Correct Pros are discussed in the first paragraph and cons are discussed in the second paragraph.

C. Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention that Tit-for-Tat works well in business.

D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.

INCORRECT The two examples presented are not compared and contrasted.

E. Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.

INCORRECT The passage didn't mention about the long-term comparative advantage.

4. According to the passage, the reason why both US and Soviet embassies found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions is


A. They aided cross country spying and wiretapping.

INCORRECT When Soviet wiretapped and spies, US responeded by reducing diplomats. They both didn't aid spying and wiretapping.

B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.

Correct

C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.

INCORRECT Only soviet cut the support staff.

D.Both of them lacked enough qualified diplomats to fulfill all their obligations once the Tit-for-tat treaties were exercised.

INCORRECT The presence of the word "qualified" makes this option incorrect. They didn't have enough diplomats to carry out the diplomatic functions.

E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.

INCORRECT Out of scope. This behaviour is not discussed in the passage.



I chose option D for question 3 by focusing on this excerpt from the paragraph, "In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations", in which the word in spite of is indicating a contrast. Please explain where am I going wrong?


Hi,

The 1st para is only concerned with pros , there is no contrast -the second para on the other hand deals only with cons no pros.
when we look at the answer choice it says compare and contrast 2 scenarios , not compares the first and contrasts the second


Ok, Thanks. Got it !!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye &nbs [#permalink] 03 Sep 2018, 09:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Tit-for-Tat – a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.