GWD7-8，急需确定的问题

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

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

Answer: C

之前有人问过，但是我还是不明白。

作者提出一块钱的目的就是要举反例来说明sum是不起作用的。那么应该是E啊？？？

难道就因为题目指出是L21，所以就只能在L21前后找答案？

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,
            

如果人是自私的，那么，proposer会给尽可能少的分额，而responder会接受任何offer，不管有多少，毕竟，一块钱也比没有强。

在这一段话中（if...即假设这种理论成立的情况下），说这一块钱是为了强调responder能接受任何offer的理由。