Q27

[pinkdatura]

Q 27 Logic strengthen paragraph 3---I have a major difficulty of this question
We suppose to find answer that prehistory uniform could explain why people reject low offer

B hierarchy about allocation and criteria of fairnesｓ
D It is just as counterproductive to a small social group to allow oneself to be outcompeted by one's rival (=why we reject lower offer?) as it is to outcompete those rivals(give fair offer?)
E based on equal distribution?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

What would make the author look upon the explanation in the third paragraph more favorably?

Let's break it down:

The explanation we are discussing, in everyday terms, is...

Behavior in Ultimatum influenced by ancestral need for strong small group.
In small groups, it was bad to outcompete fellow members.

The reason the author doesn't like this explanation is...

1. It explains why proposers offer large amounts (to not make other person look bad).

BUT

2. It doesn't explain not taking a smaller amount (wouldn't taking the amount make other "team" member look good?)

Our job is likely going to be to get rid of, or to limit, this objection.

I wasn't 100% what you meant about each of the answers, so let me discuss them here:

(B) is about hierarchies, and, furthermore, what might be true of "many" cultures won't necessarily prove something about human nature one way or the other. Therefore, it's unclear how this impacts why the person rejects the low offer.

(D) is the correct answer. This answer essentially says --

It was also bad for the group to make oneself look bad.

If this is true, one shouldn't accept a bad offer. (D) addresses the issue the author had.

(E) is out of scope here -- needs vs equal shares is not what is at issue.

Hope that helps!

[GeneW]

Thank you for the detailed and helpful explanations. Much appreciated.

[YT]

I personally think that the core of this argument is a bit different than the above poster's explanation. The rationale of offering large amounts (e.g. 50% instead of 20%) is not that by this way, the group avoids a possible damage to the receiver's reputation, but rather it avoids weakening one group member in future external competition (with other groups). According to the author, this rationale is valid to the extent that it's rational to offer 50% instead of 20%, because the group's wellbeing is also dependent on the member's wellbeing who receives the other %50. But this explanation cannot explain why this latter member rejects if only 20% is offered -- the group's wellbeing would probably be better served if he took %20, instead of starving himself.

The answer choice (D) says that taking the 20% is actually also harmful to the group's wellbeing, as allowing oneself to be outcompeted by one's internal rivals is also bad for the group. So basically, it gives what the author demands in the last sentence of the third paragraph -- i.e. an extention of "group's wellbeing" theory which is now able to explain why the 20% offer is rejected.

[KenM242]

It's the wording that makes people like me unable to fathom for what possible reason the choice (D) was written. If you translate it to everyday language, it becomes very clear:

It's just as bad to allow yourself get screwed over, as it is to screw others over. In other words, make sure you get your share.