【快考了】人多势众，问道题：GWD7-Q8

abby666666

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



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: C

都会给解释下：B怎么不对？谢谢啦！~

ilearn2

个人意见：
题目问作者refer to "one dollar"目的, 那应该从紧接的上下文找。找出one dollar那句
If, in fact, ***, no matter how small: *** one dollar ***.
从冒号的语法功能考虑，冒号后是解释冒号前的。所以C很合理。

不选B理由：
20 percent在one dollar后面才提到，不大像“provide an example of...” 如果是这个选项，那20 percent应该出现在one dollar前面。

abby666666

个人意见：
题目问作者refer to "one dollar"目的, 那应该从紧接的上下文找。找出one dollar那句
If, in fact, ***, no matter how small: *** one dollar ***.
从冒号的语法功能考虑，冒号后是解释冒号前的。所以C很合理。

不选B理由：
20 percent在one dollar后面才提到，不大像“provide an example of...” 如果是这个选项，那20 percent应该出现在one dollar前面。

-- by 会员 ilearn2 (2010/1/29 1:18:15)

全面我很赞同，但是后面粉色部分。。。不是也可能为了说明后面的部分吗？

amumu

one dollar后面是however，说明意思转折了。
后面意思确实也是说大部分offer不是one dollar的情况。

abby666666

one dollar后面是however，说明意思转折了。
后面意思确实也是说大部分offer不是one dollar的情况。

-- by 会员 amumu (2010/1/29 9:12:34)

凹凸曼同学，你的意思是不是说如果要为了说明后面，也该是与后面对比呢？。。

amumu

不是啊，结构应该是：
1. in fact，。。。
2. one dollar example
3. however
1和2是一伙的，3已经转折了。
所以2是说明1的，而不是3的。

abby666666

不是啊，结构应该是：
1. in fact，。。。
2. one dollar example
3. however
1和2是一伙的，3已经转折了。
所以2是说明1的，而不是3的。

-- by 会员 amumu (2010/1/29 15:39:16)

可in order to也可以为了表对比呀？。。

amumu

但是B选项说2是3的一个例子。这个意思不对啊。
2不是3的例子，2是1的一个极端例子。
3中虽然提到了20%，但是主要意思是在表述“40%-50%的事情”。
另外，从原文“40 and 50 percent; only 4 percent”可以看出，“only”前面是分号，说明后面4%是“40 and 50 percent”的解释，而不是主干。主干是判断句，即：大部分是落在40%到50%的区间。

abby666666

但是B选项说2是3的一个例子。这个意思不对啊。
2不是3的例子，2是1的一个极端例子。
3中虽然提到了20%，但是主要意思是在表述“40%-50%的事情”。
另外，从原文“40 and 50 percent; only 4 percent”可以看出，“only”前面是分号，说明后面4%是“40 and 50 percent”的解释，而不是主干。主干是判断句，即：大部分是落在40%到50%的区间。

-- by 会员 amumu (2010/1/29 16:25:39)

恩~谢谢~明白了