Question Description
Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Tit-for-Tat a strategy that is a variation of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth - is clear and simple, never initiates cheating, and provocable that it is, it never allows cheating to go unpunished.It is surprisingly successful in two-person prisoners dilemma games. In a tournament that pitched 150 game theorists from around the world and in which contestants were ranked by the sum of their scores, the winner Anatol Rapoport successfully deployed this strategy. The result and the winner remained the same when the same tournament was repeated with an expanded audience.One of the impressive features about Tit-for-Tat is that it did so well overall, even though it did not (nor could it) beat any one of its rivals in a head-on. At best, Tit-for-Tat ties its rivals. Hence, if the competition was scored as a winner take-all contest, Anatol would not have won. The two advantages of Tit-for-Tat are that firstly, it always comes close and secondly, it usually encourages cooperation while avoiding exploitation.In-spite of the above, Tit-for-Tat is a flawed strategy in certain situations. The slightest possibility of misperception results in the complete breakdown in the success of Tit-for-Tat. For example, in 1987, the United States responded to the Soviet spying and wiretapping of the US embassy in Moscow by reducing the number of Soviet diplomats permitted in United States. The Soviets responded by cutting the support staff at the US embassy in Moscow and reducing the number of US diplomats. As a result, both countries found it difficult to carry on their diplomatic functions.The problem with Tit-for-Tat is that any mistake echoes back and forth and sets up a chain reaction that has the potential to cause grave damage.What can be inferred about the two-person prisoners dilemma tournaments discussed in the passage?a)Evaluate the various strategies that can be effective against head on competition.b)Discuss the pros and cons of the Tit-for-Tat as a strategy.c)Prove that while Tit-for-Tat may be beneficial for business, it is not the right strategy when diplomatic ties are involved.d)Compare and contrast 2 scenarios, one in which Tit-for-Tat works and one in which it does not.e)Demonstrate the inability of Tit- for-Tat to provide long term competitive advantage.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.