Q23

[jdieck]

I went through this question twice actually and go it right on the first try and wrong the second time around. >.>

Both times I narrowed the answer choice down to B and C. I'll attempt to give my reasoning as to why answer choice is B is wrong and C is right.

Answer choice B seemed attractive at first because it captured the question aspect of lines 24-27, however, that question is not a rhetorical question because we know the answer. The author goes on to give it to us a few lines below in 32-34: it would take a large return in order for someone to accept a 50% of losing. Even if the we accepted B as a rhetorical question, B would still be wrong because 24-27 is not in conflict with the previously accepted view. The rhetorical question, in fact, is used to explain the previous view. Therefore, B is wrong.

Answer choice C says that, although the newer view helps us to understand many risk taking situations, the older view does help us as well to understand some situations, particularly those in which a risky venture may result in a sufficiently high compensation if the gamble is won.

Am I on the right track?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, you nailed the dealbreaker in (B).

Lines 24-27 are an example OF the previously accepted view, not a counterexample to them.

Be careful with why you initially liked (B) .. the fact that (B) actually uses "rhetorical question" when we're being asked about a question is inherently trappy.

They know that people would like that part, but for a low-level thinking reason. Question = question.

You don't have to read or understand the passage to like that correspondence, hence, it's probably just a trap answer trying to give you a reason to like it.

===== complete explanation ======

RC questions that ask for the function/purpose of a detail are really formulaic.

The author mentioned ____ in order to
The author mentioned ____ primarily to
The author's reference to ____ serves to

The correct answer usually reinforces the broader point that was being made RIGHT BEFORE (or more rarely, right after) the actual detail.

So lines 17-24, the previous sentence, are what I would really expect to be reinforced. This sentence is saying that "We THOUGHT that our previous notion was pretty applicable ... (for example ... lines 24-27)"

== answer choices ==

(A) contradicted - "vary widely" is the opposite of what the author is expecting .. "it is commonplace"

(B) contradicted - the answer SUPPORTS the previously accepted view

(C) is the correct answer. This reinforces the previous sentence, lines 17-24.

(D) out of scope - Subjective vs. Objective? Illusion vs. real?

(E) weirdest RC answer choice I've seen in a while. Is this critiquing the author's writing style? There is no abrupt switch until line 35, when we flip from the previously accepted notion of risk aversion to the current studies' findings.