Risk

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct52% picked this

   the country’s actions are consistent with previously accepted views of the

   Why this is right

   The "previously accepted views" are defined at the outset of the 2nd paragraph. This answer is talking about the country that invaded and seized another country's claimed territory. Because they stood to gain great mineral wealth and only stood to lose moderate but easily tolerable harm, it seems to match up with the idea that such a gamble would typically be accepted only when the possible gain greatly exceeds the possible loss.

   Skill tested: Application · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   52%
2. B

   Opposite9% picked this

   the new research findings indicate that the country from which the territory has been seized probably weighs the risk factors involved in the situation

   The passage told us that the aggressor nation would only gamble on this potential gain if they know that the gain greatly outweighs the potential loss. The passage told us that the neighboring country, who had already claimed this territory, would perceive giving up this territory as a sure loss, and so they would be much more willing to gamble on reclaiming it.

   9%
3. C

   Unsupported14% picked this

   in spite of surface appearances to the contrary, the new research findings suggest that the objective value of the potential gain

   The only time in the passage when we're getting a situation where the research would suggest that the risk appears theoretically unjustifiable is when "a possible outcome perceived as a loss typically motivates more strongly than the prospect of an equivalent gain". But this answer is talking about the aggressor nation. Their potential gain (great mineral wealth) is not equivalent to their potential loss (moderate but easily tolerable harm). The potential gain seems to dwarf the potential loss.

   14%
4. D

   Unsupported14% picked this

   the facts of the situation show that the government is motivated by factors other than objective calculation of the

   This answer is obnoxiously vague in just using 'the government' without specifying which one (given that their are two nations discussed). But the stronger suspicion is that they're trying to refer to the government of the aggressor nation, which actually took an action. They are seemingly motivated by an objective calculation of the measurable risks / benefits. Great mineral wealth > easily tolerable harm The government of the country that has previously claimed this now-seized territory is the one whose reactions to this invasion might be motivated by factors other than objective calculation (they might have that more subjective calculus described in the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph).

   14%
5. E

   Unsupported11% picked this

   the country’s leaders most likely subjectively perceive the territory as having been taken from their

   We would only speculate that the aggressor nation was perceiving this claimed territory as theirs, if we felt like their risk taking behavior was unjustified by the cost/benefit of the situation. But since the benefit (great mineral wealth) seems to vastly outsize the cost (easily tolerable harm), we have no support for thinking that this country's leaders are irrationally overcommitting to a risky venture out of the subjective pain of a perceived loss.

   11%