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

Question

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 
 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 
 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 
 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 
 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.

Nikhil · Accepted Answer

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.

shweta234 · Answer

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.

vaibhav1221 · Answer

A fairly easy passage, took me 4 minutes, including reading time.

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

vaibhav1221 · Answer

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

tamal99 · Answer

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.

vaibhav1221 · Answer

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

LaveenaPanchal · Answer

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. It is not mentioned in the passage whether rivals did or not deploy Tit for Tat. 
B. Anatol was able to tie with each one of his rivals.  Incorrect. It is not mentioned that Anatol tied with each of its rivals. 
C. The tournaments were not scored as a winner take all contest but ranked contestants by the sum of their scores.  Correct. It is suggested by the statement "Hence, 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 no such information in the passage. 
E. Anatol was able to ensure that all his rivals cooperate with him in each of the games he played.  Incorrect. This is not the reason of Anatol's win.

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 No such information in the passage. 
B. None of the participants were as smart as Anatol who won the tournament both times.  Incorrect No such information in the passage. 
C. The winner might have been different the second time had the scoring been changed to winner takes all method.  Correct. It is suggested by the statement "Hence, 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. It is not mentioned how many candidates were close to Anatol in terms of points. 
E. The first iteration included domestic participants while the second iteration included more global participation.  Incorrect Second iteration has a expanded audience and not 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.  Incorrect Only one strategy is discussed. 
B. Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.  Correct. The author discusses Pros in first para and cons in second para. 
C. Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.  Incorrect. No where mentioned or intended in passage. 
D. Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.  Incorrect. The author does not compare the scenarios with each other. The examples are independent to explain the pros and cons of the Tit for Tat strategy. 
E. Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.  Incorrect Long term competitive advantage is out of scope of the passage,

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. Part of a reason. 
B.Both their parent countries employed Tit-for-tat strategies.  Correct. US and Soviet both employed Tit for Tat strategies and it created difficulties for both the countries to carry on their diplomatic functions. 
C.The embassies did not employ enough support staff to carry out operations.  Incorrect. Part of a reason was the cutting off of 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 Tit for tat treaties is not mentioned in the passage. 
E.Both did mistakes that they could not rectify in time.  Incorrect. Out of scope of passage.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards