Top Law Schools

Hi all,
Personally I find this "ultimatum game" passage from PT59 is one of the most interesting and engaging ones. It just demands attention and curiosity there.

Anyway, I have a question regarding Q23. It's down to 2 answers A and B. I know A is too strong, claiming it's "contrary and it does not need rational...", for all we know is that, it is not "primarily out of the rational self-interest". But I also have a little issue with answer B in the "most commonly displayed" part. It's 4/100 people who proposed ridiculous split. That's certainly not the most common case, unless it also includes the 2/3 of the fair proposers. But responses from the fair proposers though have an evolutionary basis, they don't seem to conflict with rational self-interest.

What do you think?

Thanks.

A is wrong because it completely misses the point, not because it's "too strong". The author mentions theoretical economics in passing, and if you thought that his main point was to refute the traditional assumption of theoretical economics, then you need to go back and give it a thorough reading.

It becomes pretty clear in the 2nd paragraph that his purpose for writing is to explain the puzzling results of the ultimatum game. He goes on to give "some theorists" POV, and we can predict that the author will give us his own view next. Sure enough, "A more compelling explanation is...."

Don't get lost in the answer choices. Try forming a prediction of the main point as soon as you finish reading the passage. Something like the results of the ultimatum game can be explained by (the 3rd paragraph).