gwd-7-8

foreverluke

For many years, theoretical



       economists characterized humans

       as rational beings relentlessly bent

Line       on maximizing purely selfish reward.

  (5)       Results of an experimental economics

study appear to contradict this view,

however.  In the “Ultimatum Game,”

two subjects, who cannot exchange

information, are placed in separate

(10)      rooms.  One is randomly chosen to

propose how a sum of money, known

to both, should be shared between

them; only one offer, which must

be accepted or rejected without

(15)      negotiation, is allowed.

      If, in fact, people are selfish and

rational, then the proposer should offer

the smallest possible share, while the

responder should accept any offer,

(20)      no matter how small:  after all, even

       one dollar is better than nothing.  In

       numerous trials, however, two-thirds

of the offers made were between

40 and 50 percent; only 4 percent

(25)      were less than 20 percent.  Among

responders, more than half who were

offered less than 20 percent rejected

the offer.  Behavior in the game did not

appreciably depend on the players’

(30)      sex, age, or education.  Nor did the

amount of money involved play a

significant role:  for instance, in trials

       of the game that were conducted in

Indonesia, the sum to be shared was

(35)     as much as three times the subjects’

average monthly income, and still

responders refused offers that they

deemed too small.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q8:

The author refers to the sum of one dollar (line 21) in order to

              

A   question the notion that the amount of money involved significantly affected players’ behavior
B    provide an example of one of the rare offers made by proposers that was less than 20 percent
C    illustrate the rationality of accepting even a very small offer
D    suggest a reason that responders rejected offers that were less than 20 percent
E    challenge the conclusion that a selfish and rational proposer should offer a responder the smallest possible share

Answer:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------i think the answer is A,am i right?

gabriel_djh

I think the answer is C; A 中的question the notion错。原文等于说再少的钱也会接受，哪怕是一块钱。（有总比没有好）

foreverluke

thanks, i make  a mistake,i have thougt it refers to line31,while it is line21,so  big mistake

mudiduanger

请问E为什么不对呢？

zhangluE

哪位NN帮忙解释一下啊,这道题还是不明白,C什么意思啊,为什么选C?

linmeimei

第二段if .... then ...都是对试验的一个预期结果。接下来however说明试验与预

期结果相反。while the responder should accept any offer, no matter how small:

after all , even one dollar is better than nothing.就是说理性人愿意接受任何钱，

不管有多少：总之1块钱也比没有钱强。   也就是答案C的内容。

pangpangshin

没有人就atypical的词性来讨论么？我觉得atypical查了字典发现“非典型性”一般

都是用于贬义的用法，但这篇文章作者对Woody不是褒也是持中立态度吧，所以我觉得E还

是值得商榷一下。希望NN能够帮我解释一下~