Q6 to Q9:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q6:
The primary purpose of the passage is to
- provide evidence in support of the view that human beings are essentially rational and selfish
- use a particular study to challenge the argument that the economic behavior of human beings may be motivated by factors other than selfishness
- compare certain views about human nature held by theoretical economists with those held by experimental economists
- describe a study that apparently challenges theoretical economists’ understanding of human economic behavior
- suggest that researchers may have failed to take into account the impact of certain noneconomic factors in designing a study of human economic behavior
Answer: D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q7:
The passage implies that the results of the Ultimatum Game undermine theoretical economists’ characterization of human beings by
- demonstrating that most people are inclined to try to maximize their own advantage whenever possible
- indicating that people who do not have the option of negotiating might behave more generously than do those who have the option of negotiating
- illustrating how people’s economic behavior depends to some extent on how large a sum of money is involved
- showing that most people instinctively place their own economic self-interest ahead of the interest of strangers
- suggesting that people’s economic behavior might in part be motivated by factors other than selfishness
Answer: E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q8:
The author refers to the sum of one dollar (line 21) in order to
- question the notion that the amount of money involved significantly affected players’ behavior
- provide an example of one of the rare offers made by proposers that was less than 20 percent
- illustrate the rationality of accepting even a very small offer
- suggest a reason that responders rejected offers that were less than 20 percent
- challenge the conclusion that a selfish and rational proposer should offer a responder the smallest possible share
Answer: E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q9:
All of the following are expressly mentioned in the passage as factors that did not significantly affect players’ behavior EXCEPT the
- players’ level of schooling
- amount of money to be shared
- ages of the players
- players’ professions
- genders of the players
Answer: D
想问问大家的答案是什么？没有找到该题的讨论，答案给的也和我做的不一样。 | 
