Reading Comprehension

PT131 · S4 · P4 · Q27 Ultimatum Game

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In an experiment, two strangers are given the opportunity to share $100, subject to the following constraints: One person—the "proposer"—is to suggest how to divide the money and can make only one such proposal.

Topic

The Ultimatum Game and why people often reject unfair offers, even at their own expense.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

People instinctively reject low, "unfair" offers in the Ultimatum Game not because it’s the most rational economic choice, but because our emotional responses have been shaped by social evolution—rejecting poor offers preserves self-esteem and builds a reputation that is valuable in social groups. The Most Valuable Sentence: The last few sentences of the final paragraph:

P1: Introduction to the Ultimatum Game

We’re introduced to the Ultimatum Game, where one person proposes a way to split $100, and the other must accept or reject it—with rejection meaning both get nothing. Most people tend to offer close to 50-50 splits, and it's puzzling that responders often reject very low offers, even though taking any money would be strictly “rational.”

P2: Hypothesis About Fairness and Social Groups

Some theorists think this desire for fairness comes from our evolutionary past in small, interdependent groups. Fairness helped groups survive, but this idea mainly explains why the proposer tries to be fair—it doesn't explain why a responder would give up money by rejecting a bad deal.

P3: Explanation Based on Emotional Evolution

The author provides a deeper explanation: our emotions evolved in environments where reputation mattered, and everyone’s actions were noticed. Rejecting poor offers is a way to defend our self-respect and protect our reputation, which pays off in repeated social interactions—even though the Ultimatum Game is a one-shot scenario.

27.

In the context of the passage, the author would be most likely to consider the explanation in the third paragraph more favorably if it were shown that

our prehistoric ancestors often belonged
No Impact
Whether it's 50 people, 100, 200, what does that matter? We need a way to argue that "the fact that we evolved in groups where it would be bad to outcompete your rivals to the point of harming them" can also explain why responders in the study turn down really small offers. This answer doesn't connect those two at all.
2% picked this
in many prehistoric cultures, there
No Impact
This answer is saying that some cultures had hierarchies that decided which divisions were fair or not. It's unclear whether this is saying "some cultures had authority figures who decreed whether an allocation was fair" or whether it's saying "some cultures had different tiers of economic classes, and so what was fair in one group might be unfair in other group". Regardless, neither one of those interpretations would have anything to do with our goal of arguing that "the fact that we evolved in groups where it would be bad to outcompete your rivals to the point of harming them" can also explain why responders in the study turn down really small offers.
14% picked this
it is just as difficult
No Impact
This answer is contrasting large vs. small, which the passage never did. And it's talking about keeping secrets, which the passage never did. It doesn't have any wording that connects with our goal of arguing that "the fact that we evolved in groups where it would be bad to outcompete your rivals to the point of harming them" can also explain why responders in the study turn down really small offers.
5% picked this
Correct
it is just as counterproductive
Why this is right
This helps us with our goal of arguing that "the fact that we evolved in groups where it would be bad to outcompete your rivals to the point of harming them" can also explain why responders in the study turn down really small offers. The 3rd paragraph used this fact to explain why proposers in the study usually offer fair divisions: they offer fair divisions because they want their rivals to still be adequately strong; it's counterproductive to outcompete rivals to the point of harming them, since you want their help in battles against common enemies. The author said, "yeah, but this fact doesn't explain why responders reject low offers". And this answer is saying, yes it does: Responders reject low offers because that would be analogous to allowing yourself to be outcompeted by your rival. Just as we are instinctively programmed to avoid badly outcompeting our rivals (which explains why proposers offer fair divisions), so too are we instinctively programmed to avoid being badly outcompeted by our rivals (which explains why responders reject low offers).
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
67% picked this
in many social groups, there
No Impact
This answer makes it clear that sometimes people will tolerate unequal divisions because the people in question have very unequal needs. This wouldn't apply at all to the Ultimatum Game, though, since the people know nothing about each other's needs. And this has nothing to do with connecting the concept from the 3rd paragraph (you don't want to outcompete your rivals so badly that you hurt them) to why responders reject low offers.
11% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free