Question:

Read the passage and answer the question that follows:
Modern behavioral economists argue that human decisions are not merely deviations from rationality but reflections of multiple competing goals: emotional satisfaction, social approval, cognitive ease, and fear avoidance. Traditional economic models assumed that people maximize utility through consistent preferences. However, empirical evidence shows that preferences fluctuate depending on framing, context, memory limits, and social cues. What we label as “irrationality” may simply be the mind optimizing for criteria that formal models fail to capture.
Question: Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the author’s argument?

Show Hint

For strengthening questions, look for evidence that reinforces the author's reasoning process, not just the conclusion. The best answer usually provides a mechanism that supports the author’s claim.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution - 1

Approach: A strengthener must reinforce the author's exact claim, so first pin the claim, then ask which kind of new fact makes it harder to deny.

Step 1 \(-\) the claim: The author argues that behaviour we dismiss as "irrational" is really the mind optimising for goals standard models ignore \(-\) emotional satisfaction, social approval, cognitive ease, fear avoidance.

Step 2 \(-\) what would strengthen it: Evidence that a specific decision which looks irrational by utility-maximising standards actually delivers a real payoff on one of those hidden goals. That converts the author's interpretation from speculation into a demonstrated pattern.

Step 3 \(-\) the winning option: A finding such as \(-\) people who make "financially irrational" choices (e.g. giving resources away) consistently gain social status and long-term community support \(-\) directly shows the behaviour serves an overlooked goal, exactly as the author claims.

Why the wrong options fail: An option saying preferences are stable across framing contradicts the passage (reverses it). One saying irrational choices simply reduce wealth with no benefit weakens the author, not strengthens. One about a single unrelated bias is out of scope \(-\) it neither names a competing goal nor links the behaviour to a payoff.

\[\boxed{\text{Correct: the option tying an \"irrational\" choice to a real, model-ignored benefit.}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

A mechanism check for strengtheners: A strengthener for this passage must do one specific job — show that a choice which fails a strict utility-maximising test is nonetheless serving one of the four named goals (emotional payoff, social approval, cognitive ease, fear avoidance). Test each option by asking: does it supply a concrete instance where a seemingly poor financial choice produced a real payoff along one of those four channels?

Only the option describing people who make choices that look financially unwise (for example, giving away resources) but who consistently gain social standing or long-term support passes this check — it supplies the missing causal link between an "irrational-looking" behaviour and a genuine, non-financial reward, which is exactly what the author's claim needs to be more than speculation. Options about stable preferences, pure losses with no offsetting benefit, or an unrelated cognitive quirk all fail the check because none of them connects a real-world case to one of the four hidden goals.

\[ \boxed{\text{The option linking an "irrational" act to a genuine social or emotional payoff strengthens the passage.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CAT Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) Questions

View More Questions

Top CAT Reading Comprehension Questions

View More Questions