PrepTest 113, Section 1, Question 24

Working the answers

• A

  Caring strongly about a perceived loss isn't the same as having bad information. A government might understand the risks and still be willing to take them. The account doesn't say states are generally misled.

• B
  Correct

  I initially hesitate because we aren't told this in exactly these words. But look at the move from paragraph two to paragraph three: observations about individuals' gambles are highly relevant to researchers studying conflict between countries, and the same loss-based motivation is then applied to nations.

  That supports the similarity B describes. The explanation connects personal and governmental risk-taking through a shared pattern of subjective evaluation. We don't need to assume every decision is identical, or lower our standards just because the other choices fail; the connection itself supplies support.

• C

  Economics is mentioned, but no new method for predicting and mediating conflicts is presented. Explaining why psychological findings matter to international affairs isn't the same as establishing the practical method claimed here.

• D

  We aren't told rational decisions are rare or that making them can itself have severe consequences. Both claims go beyond examples of gambles that appear unjustifiable.

• E

  Taking risks when the expected payoff looks attractive resembles the previous view. Calling that contrary to previous assumptions misses the newer point about the special force of perceived losses.