DISCUSSION: It sounds like the attacking country is acting rationally. If the country succeeds, then they’ve gained new land and great wealth. If the country fails, they just face a small loss.
The other country will probably act irrationally when trying to get the territory back.
The old theory was that a person would only take a risk if there would be a big payoff. It looks like the benefits for the attacking country far outweigh the risk. So their actions fit with the old risk model.
- CORRECT. The earlier research found that countries will take risks only if the benefits greatly outweigh the possible harm (lines 17-22). That seems to be the case here: the gains are large and the risk is small.
- Since the victim has experienced a loss, they’ll probably act irrationally when they try to get the territory back. We fear loss more than we like gains. Only one country has lost something here; so the two countries will view the situation differently.
- The new research doesn’t change what the risks of any move are. It changes how we see risk. We see a loss as being unusually bad. The ‘objective value’ of a risk is not how we see a risk. It’s instead how big a risk really is.
- Hard to say. The risks seem objectively good: the country has gained great wealth and it only risks a small loss.
- Maybe? The leaders might just want to steal mineral wealth.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions