Recent investigations into the psychology of decision making have spar

Question

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
  (5)   the basis of expected costs and benefits. Researchers
have demonstrated some significant discrepancies
between objective measurements of possible decision
outcomes and the ways in which people subjectively
value such possible results. Many of these
  (10)   discrepancies relate to the observation that a possible
outcome perceived as a loss typically motivates more
strongly than the prospect of an equivalent gain. Risk
taking is thus a more common strategy for those who
believe they will lose what they already possess than it
  (15)   is for those who wish to gain something they do not
have.

Previously, the notion that rational decision makers
prefer risk-avoiding choices was considered to apply
generally, epitomized by the assumption of many
  (20)   economists that entrepreneurs and consumers will
choose a risky venture over a sure thing only when the
expected measurable value of the outcome is
sufficiently high to compensate the decision maker for
taking the risk. What is the minimum prize that would
  (25)   be required to make a gamble involving a 50 percent
chance of losing $100 and a 50 percent chance of
winning the prize acceptable? It is commonplace that
the pleasure of winning a sum of money is much less
intense than the pain of losing the same amount;
  (30)   accordingly, such a gamble would typically be
accepted only when the possible gain greatly exceeds
the possible loss. Research subjects do, in fact,
commonly judge that a 50 percent chance to lose $100
is unacceptable unless it is combined with an equal
  (35)   chance to win more than $300. Nevertheless, the recent
studies indicate that risk-accepting strategies are
common when the alternative to a sure loss is a
substantial chance of losing an even larger amount,
coupled with some chance—even a small one—of
  (40)   losing nothing.

Such observations are quite salient to scholars of
international conflict and crisis. For example,
governments typically are cautious in foreign policy
initiatives that entail risk, especially the risk of armed
  (45)   conflict. But nations also often take huge gambles to
retrieve what they perceive to have been taken from
them by other nations. This type of motivation, then,
can lead states to take risks that far outweigh the
objectively measurable value of the lost assets. For
  (50)   example, when Britain and Argentina entered into
armed conflict in 1982 over possession of the Falkland
Islands—or Malvinas, as they are called in Spanish—
each viewed the islands as territory that had been taken
from them by the other; thus each was willing to
  (55)   commit enormous resources—and risks—to
recapturing them. In international affairs, it is vital that
each actor in such a situation understand the other’s
subjective view of what is at stake.    1 
 1. Suppose that a country seizes a piece of territory with great mineral wealth that is claimed by a neighboring country, with a concomitant risk of failure involving moderate but easily tolerable harm in the long run. Given the information in the passage, the author would most likely say that

(A) the country’s actions are consistent with previously accepted views of the psychology of risk-taking
(B) the new research findings indicate that the country from which the territory has been seized probably weighs the risk factors involved in the situation similarly to the way in which they are weighed by the aggressor nation
(C) in spite of surface appearances to the contrary, the new research findings suggest that the objective value of the potential gain is overridden by the risks
(D) the facts of the situation show that the government is motivated by factors other than objective calculation of the measurable risks and probable benefits
(E) the country’s leaders most likely subjectively perceive the territory as having been taken from their country in the past

2 
 2. The question in lines 24-27 functions primarily as

(A) the introduction to a thought experiment whose results the author expects will vary widely among different people
(B) a rhetorical question whose assumed answer is in conflict with the previously accepted view concerning risk-taking behavior
(C) the basis for an illustration of how the previously accepted view concerning risk taking behavior applies accurately to some types of situations
(D) a suggestion that the discrepancies between subjective and objective valuations of possible decision outcomes are more illusive than real
(E) a transitional device to smooth an otherwise abrupt switch from discussion of previous theories to discussion of some previously unaccepted research findings

3 
 3. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

(A) When states try to regain losses through risky conflict, they generally are misled by inadequate or inaccurate information as to the risks that they run in doing so.
(B) Government decision makers subjectively evaluate the acceptability of risks involving national assets in much the same way that they would evaluate risks involving personal assets.
(C) A new method for predicting and mediating international conflict has emerged from a synthesis of the fields of economics and psychology.
(D) Truly rational decision making is a rare phenomenon in international crises and can, ironically, lead to severe consequences for those who engage in it.
(E) Contrary to previous assumptions, people are more likely to take substantial risks when their subjective assessments of expected benefits match or exceed the objectively measured costs.

4 
 4. The passage can be most accurately described as

(A) a psychological analysis of the motives involved in certain types of collective decision making in the presence of conflict
(B) a presentation of a psychological hypothesis which is then subjected to a political test case
(C) a suggestion that psychologists should incorporate the findings of political scientists into their research
(D) an examination of some new psychological considerations regarding risk and their application to another field of inquiry
(E) a summary of two possible avenues for understanding international crises and conflicts

5 
 5. The passage most clearly suggests that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

(A) Researchers have previously been too willing to accept the claims that subjects make about their preferred choices in risk-related decision problems.
(B) There is inadequate research support for the hypothesis that except when a gamble is the only available means for averting an otherwise certain loss, people typically are averse to risk-taking.
(C) It can reasonably be argued that the risk that Britain accepted in its 1982 conflict with Argentina outweighed the potential objectively measurable benefit of that venture.
(D) The new findings suggest that because of the subjective elements involved, governmental strategies concerning risks of loss in international crises will remain incomprehensible to outside observers.
(E) Moderate risks in cases involving unavoidable losses are often taken on the basis of reasoning that diverges markedly from that which was studied in the recent investigations.

skhanna10 · Answer

In Q3, why is option E wrong?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

(E)  is wrong because it describes the assessment of costs and benefits which is an  objective  approach rather than a  subjective  one, and is in line with  “previous assumptions,”  not  “contrary”  to them.

DinoPen · Answer

I got 1 and 3 wrong. Can someone care to explain?

But, I was able to crack 2,4,5.

2. The question in lines 24-27 functions primarily as

Lines 24-27:
 What is the minimum prize that would be required to make a gamble involving a 50 percent chance of losing $100 and a 50 percent chance of winning the prize acceptable?  
The passage then further describes how much risk one was willing to take in relation to the reward.

Crossed out A, D, and E since they have no relation to what has been said.
 
(B) a rhetorical question whose assumed answer is in conflict with the previously accepted view concerning risk-taking behavior
There was nothing that suggested that there was a rhetorical question. Out.

(C) the basis for an illustration of how the previously accepted view concerning risk taking behavior applies accurately to some types of situations
Yes. The passage then uses a situation to illustrate red-hot decision making, suggesting the decisions were not the best.

4. The passage can be most accurately described as

Paragraph 1 introduces the idea of gambling. Paragraph 2 explains research behind risk taking. Paragraph 3 explains how some risk taking is not at all rational using examples.
Only answer choice D fits with this reasoning.

D) an examination of some new psychological considerations regarding risk and their application to another field of inquiry

5. The passage most clearly suggests that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

As noted from question 4, paragraph 3 states that taking a lot of risk for not a lot of reward is irrational. Thus, the author would most likely agree with answer choice C.

(C) It can reasonably be argued that the risk that Britain accepted in its 1982 conflict with Argentina outweighed the potential objectively measurable benefit of that venture.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

4. The passage can be most accurately described as

Explanation

Even when the wording may not explicitly evoke the Global category, always keep an eye out for questions that ask for an overall summary.  (D)  has it all, picking up on both the focus on the recent research findings and the author’s interest in their impact on the  “other field of inquiry,”  that of governmental decision-making.

(A)  is most notable for what it lacks: namely, any reference to new findings or the decision-making of governments. Also, to say that researchers have analyzed psychology is not to say that a report (like this passage) on their findings is itself  “a psychological analysis.” (B)’s “political test case”  is obviously meant to be the 1982 war, but  (B)  misrepresents that detail, which is included to illustrate the applicability of the recent findings and not to test whether those findings apply.

(C)  implies an advocacy purpose on the part of the author, which is (maybe) hinted at in the last sentence only, and if anything, the author wants political science to take psychology into account, not vice versa.  (E) , like other wrong choices we’ve seen, seems to think that there is some sort of conflict or dichotomy at the heart of the passage, when in fact both are cited as valid. In any case, the objective and subjective are ways of understanding how governments react to  “crises and conflicts” ; they’re not a means of understanding the crises and conflicts themselves.

Answer: D

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

3. It can most reasonably be inferred from the passage that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

Explanation

The passage is explicitly dealing only with  “rational decision makers” (line 17) , but  (A)  is describing an incomplete and chaotic process at odds with the text.

(B)  is the winner, connecting the new findings about individuals’ risk-taking (cf. the  “research subjects”  and their assessment of gambling risks, lines 32+) with the risk-taking of governments (paragraph 3). The test taker is well advised to examine all five choices, but not with respect or reverence. Once you’ve found a winner, your expectation should be that the others are poor. Check to make sure that they are.

(C)  certainly is: This is not a new  “method” ; there’s nothing about  “prediction of conflict” ; and the  “synthesis of...economics and psychology”  is both inaccurate and too grandiose (if anything, it’s a synthesis of the objective and subjective factors that enter into the gambles we take).

(D) ’s apocalyptic tone has no support in the text, and since (as noted with regard to (A) above) the scope of the passage is solely rational thinking,  (D)  is very peculiar in stating that such decision making is  “rare.”

Meanwhile, that which  (E)  describes—the assessment of costs and benefits—is an objective approach rather than a subjective one, and is in line with  “previous assumptions,”  not  “contrary”  to them.

Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. The passage most clearly suggests that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

Explanation

(A)  puzzlingly brings up an issue in which the author shows no interest, namely the relationship between researchers and their gullibility in terms of their test subjects.

(B)  makes a hash of such concepts as  “risk-taking”  and  “certain loss,”  and, in any case, the author is out to celebrate these new findings, not to carp on their  “inadequacy.”  You had to figure that paragraph 3’s concrete example would show up in a question somewhere, and here it is in the last question’s correct  choice (C) .

How Britain and Argentina felt about the islands in question (i.e. that each had had the islands wrested by the other) is, again, a  “feeling,”  a subjective judgment, and it’s cited precisely to show how feelings can trump a nation’s objective good judgment; we can safely infer that the author would agree with  (C).

You’d at least peek at  (D)  and  (E)  to confirm that they’re as bad as they need to be, and indeed they both prove to be 180’s. The new findings help us to understand why governments may choose to take illogical risks, thus rendering their logic more  “comprehensible”  to us outsiders rather than less so (D), and the reasoning that was recently investigated was clearly in line with observed governmental decision-making, not  “divergent from”  it  (E).

Answer: C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

1. Suppose that a country seizes a piece of territory with great mineral wealth that is claimed by a neighboring country, with a concomitant risk of failure involving moderate but easily tolerable harm in the long run. Given the information in the passage, the author would most likely say that

Explanation

Explanation

In any event, the hypothetical situation advanced here almost precisely mirrors the thinking described in  lines 19-24 . The  “great mineral wealth”  represents the  “high expected measurable value,”  and the  “compensation for taking the risk”  is explicitly cited as  “moderate”  and  “easily tolerable.”  Question is clearly choosing a risky venture along the lines of the  “previous assumption,”  as  choice (A)  describes.

There’s no information about how the country whose territory is being seized  (B)  would react, nor do the new findings shed light on it—after all, the actedupon country isn’t the one taking any risks.

(C)  has it backward: To the seizing country, the risks are clearly outweighed by the expected objective value (that’s why it seized the territory in the first place).

“motivation” (D)  is almost a sure sign of a wrong answer. Here, if the situation is taken on its face, the seizing government seems motivated only by calculation of risks and benefits.

There’s no evidence that the seized territory is perceived in the same way as the Falkland Islands were perceived by both Britain and Argentina  (E) —for all we know, the seizing country’s first claim on the territory begins right now.

Answer: A

gullyboy09 · Answer

4. The passage can be most accurately described as

(A) a psychological analysis of the motives involved in certain types of collective decision making in the presence of conflict
(B) a presentation of a psychological hypothesis which is then subjected to a political test case
(C) a suggestion that psychologists should incorporate the findings of political scientists into their research
(D) an examination of some new psychological considerations regarding risk and their application to another field of inquiry
(E) a summary of two possible avenues for understanding international crises and conflicts

Hi  KarishmaB , why B is wrong here? Is it because "hypothesis", but then can you help me with what is considered "hypothesis". I assumed it a hypothesis as it is not established yet. The use of word test case can also refer to the illustration IMO.

I rejected D because "considerations", we had only one consideration that people take more risk when there is something to loss in compare to when there is something to gain.

egmat · Answer

Hi gullyboy09,

You're circling the right issue on B, but the deciding word isn't "hypothesis," it's  "test case."  Let me take your two points in turn.

Why B is wrong

You're right that the new findings aren't fully established, so "hypothesis" isn't the flaw. The problem is the phrase  "subjected to a political test case."  A  test case  is something that could  confirm or refute  the idea - you run the case to see whether the theory survives.

But look at how the passage actually uses the Falklands (lines  50 - 56 ): it's introduced with  "For example,"  right after the claim that nations take huge gambles to retrieve what they feel was taken from them. The war is there to  illustrate that the findings apply  to international affairs - not to test whether they apply. The author already treats the findings as sound and then shows them in action.

So "test case" mischaracterizes the  function  of that example. That's the exact distinction:  an illustration shows a proven idea at work; a test case puts an unproven idea on trial.

Quick word-play to lock it in:
- "To  test  whether exercise lowers blood pressure, we tracked  200  patients." - the study could prove it false.
- "Exercise lowers blood pressure -  for example , my father's dropped after he started walking." - the example just illustrates an accepted point.

The Falklands is the second kind.

Why plural "considerations" in D is fine

The passage actually gives  more than one  new consideration, so the plural is accurate:
1. A perceived  loss  motivates more strongly than an equivalent  gain  (lines  9 - 16 ).
2. People demand a prize far larger than the possible loss before accepting a gamble (the  "$300"  finding, lines  32 - 35 ).
3. Yet people  do  accept risk when the alternative is a sure loss versus a chance of losing nothing (lines  35 - 40 ).

That's several linked findings about risk - comfortably "considerations" - and D correctly captures both them  and  their application to another field. That's why  D  is the answer.

Answer: D

Recent investigations into the psychology of decision making have spar

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

Recent investigations into the psychology of decision making have spar

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