Question:medium

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

Solution and Explanation

Think of the author as making a promise: everyday choices that look foolish under classic utility math are secretly smart once you count in feelings, reputation, mental effort, and safety. A sentence strengthens that promise only if it hands over a real case proving the promise true — someone acts against narrow financial logic and is rewarded along one of those hidden channels. The option describing people who give up money or resources yet steadily gain social respect or community backing does exactly that: it turns the author's four abstract goals into an observed payoff, which is the strongest kind of support this passage can receive. Nothing else does that job — a claim that people's preferences stay fixed regardless of framing argues against the author, a claim that "irrational" acts simply cost money with nothing gained undercuts the whole idea, and a stray fact about one unrelated bias never ties back to social approval, comfort, or safety at all.
Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension