Ultimatum Game

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact3% picked this

   our prehistoric ancestors often belonged to large groups of more than

   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.

   3%
2. B

   No Impact15% picked this

   in many prehistoric cultures, there were hierarchies within groups that dictated which allocations of goods were to be considered

   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.

   15%
3. C

   No Impact6% picked this

   it is just as difficult to keep secrets in relatively large social groups as it is

   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.

   6%
4. D

   Correct65% picked this

   it is just as counterproductive to a small social group to allow oneself to be outcompeted by one's rivals within the group as

   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.

   65%
5. E

   No Impact11% picked this

   in many social groups, there is a mutual understanding among the group's members that allocations of goods will be based on individual

   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%