Reading comp PrepTest 113 · Section 1 · Question 26

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A phenomenon (governments taking risks) and a possible explanation (people don't want to lose what they have)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Researchers'/author's view:
    • A phenomenon: governments sometimes take "gambles" that seem "unjustifiable" (first sentence)
    • Possible explanation: a potential loss motivates more than a potential gain, so people take more risks if they are going to lose something (third and last sentences)
  • Comparisons, according to researchers/the author:
    • There are significant differences between how much things are objectively worth and how people subjectively value them — namely, that people value things they lose more strongly than equivalent things they could gain (second and third sentences)
    • Risk-taking is more common when people think they might lose what they already have than when they think they can gain something (last sentence)
  • Author Attitude: "sparked interest" (first sentence), "demonstrated some significant discrepancies" (second sentence); "typically motivates" (third sentence); "Risk-taking is thus a more common strategy" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Economists' prior assumption (people avoid risk unless payout >>> loss) and new research's findings (people accept risk when faced with a near-certain loss)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Economists' view:
    • People will avoid risk unless the potential payoff is "sufficiently high" to make the risk worth it (first sentence)
  • Example of this type of risk evaluation:
    • People won't risk losing $100 for the chance of getting anything less than $300 (fourth sentence)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Recent studies show that people take bigger risks when faced with a choice between a sure loss, an even bigger loss, and the chance to "lose nothing" (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "assumption" (first sentence); "commonplace" (third sentence); "typically" (third sentence); "do in fact commonly judge" (fourth sentence); "recent studies indicate" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Application to international policy (states are more willing to accept risk to recapture losses), an example (Falkland Islands
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Governments are normally "cautious in foreign policy that entails risk," but when they are in danger of losing something, they will take "huge gambles" (second and third sentences)
  • Example of government's risk acceptance, according to the author:
    • Britain and Argentina each committed "enormous resources" in an armed conflict over the Falkland Islands/Malvinas, as they both thought they were recapturing territory they lost (fifth sentence)
  • Author's recommendation:
    • Each actor in international affairs needs to understand how the other actor subjectively views what is at stake (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "quite salient" (first sentence); "huge gambles" (third sentence); "enormous resources—and risks" (fifth sentence); "it is vital" (sixth sentence)

Main Point: Some governments' seemingly unjustifiable, risk-incurring actions can be explained by the psychological observation that people are more likely to accept risk when recapturing losses.

Phenomenon/Explanation: This passage utilizes a Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author describes an observable fact, behavior, or situation and then provides one or more explanations of that observable fact, behavior, or situation.

In this passage, the first paragraph introduces us to a topic that has "sparked interest among scholars"—why "governments sometimes take gambles that appear theoretically unjustifiable on the basis of expected costs and benefits" (P1, S1). By the end of the paragraph, the author hints to us that the answer lies in "the observation that a possible outcome perceived as a loss typically motivates more strongly than the prospect of an equivalent gain" (P1, S3). Over the next two paragraphs, the author cites research to show that people will risk more to save what they have and applies these psychological findings to the seemingly inexplicable behavior of the governments.

In a passage that utilizes a Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structure, the main point will be the explanation, if the author presents or endorses the explanation. Sometimes, the author will summarize this explanation in a one- or two-sentence conclusion. But this author didn't quite do that, so we'll need to forge our own summary: "Some governments' seemingly unjustifiable, risk-incurring actions can be explained by the psychological observation that people are more likely to accept risk when recapturing losses."

*There is considerable overlap between the Question/Answer and Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structures. If you thought this passage was a Question/Answer passage, you'd still obtain a solid understanding of the argument. We characterized this as a Phenomenon passage because the question about governments' decision-making is posed implicitly. You could even think of this passage as a Paradox/Resolution passage since it explains the "theoretically unjustifiable" actions of the government.

Example: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage is the example xited in the third paragraph. The author uses this example to prove their conclusion — international actors are more willing to engage in risky, costly operations when they think they're recovering a loss. Since both Britain and Argentina thought they had lost the Falkland Islands/Maldivas, tehy were both willing to risk enormous resources into a conflict over that territory.

Comparison: The author makes a lot of comparisons in this passage, specifically to highlight how our decision-making is different when we're motivated by a potential gain and when we're motivated by recapturing a loss. It'll help to have these highlighted, as the questions will certainly ask about these comparisons.

Some test-takers are thrown by the sudden shift in topics in this passage. Is it a passage about individuals gambling, or is it a passage about international conflicts? Well, both. But, it's important to realize that the author uses premises about risk-tolerance in gambling to make a conclusion about risk-tolerance in international conflicts. If you were unsure which supported which, consider that the passage opens and closes with claims about international conflicts — that should leave us with the impression that the author cares most about that subject.