Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Understanding the key properties of complex systems can help us clarify and deal with many new and existing global challenges, from pandemics to poverty . . . A recent study in Nature Physics found transitions to orderly states such as schooling in fish (all fish swimming in the same direction), can be caused, paradoxically, by randomness, or ‘noise’ feeding back on itself. That is, a misalignment among the fish causes further misalignment, eventually inducing a transition to schooling. Most of us wouldn’t guess that noise can produce predictable behaviour. The result invites us to consider how technology such as contact-tracing apps, although informing us locally, might negatively impact our collective movement. If each of us changes our behaviour to avoid the infected, we might generate a collective pattern we had aimed to avoid: higher levels of interaction between the infected and susceptible, or high levels of interaction among the asymptomatic.

Complex systems also suffer from a special vulnerability to events that don’t follow a normal distribution or ‘bell curve’. When events are distributed normally, most outcomes are familiar and don’t seem particularly striking. Height is a good example: it’s pretty unusual for a man to be over 7 feet tall; most adults are between 5 and 6 feet, and there is no known person over 9 feet tall. But in collective settings where contagion shapes behaviour – a run on the banks, a scramble to buy toilet paper – the probability distributions for possible events are often heavy-tailed. There is a much higher probability of extreme events, such as a stock market crash or a massive surge in infections. These events are still unlikely, but they occur more frequently and are larger than would be expected under normal distributions.

What’s more, once a rare but hugely significant ‘tail’ event takes place, this raises the probability of further tail events. We might call them second-order tail events; they include stock market gyrations after a big fall and earthquake aftershocks. The initial probability of second-order tail events is so tiny it’s almost impossible to calculate – but once a first-order tail event occurs, the rules change, and the probability of a second-order tail event increases.

The dynamics of tail events are complicated by the fact that they result from cascades of other unlikely events. When COVID-19 first struck, the stock market suffered stunning losses followed by an equally stunning recovery. Some of these dynamics are potentially attributable to former sports bettors, with no sports to bet on, entering the market as speculators rather than investors. The arrival of these new players might have increased inefficiencies and allowed savvy long-term investors to gain an edge over bettors with different goals. . . .

One reason a first-order tail event can induce further tail events is that it changes the perceived costs of our actions and changes the rules that we play by. This game-change is an example of another key complex systems concept: nonstationarity. A second, canonical example of nonstationarity is adaptation, as illustrated by the arms race involved in the coevolution of hosts and parasites [in which] each has to ‘run’ faster, just to keep up with the novel solutions the other one presents as they battle it out in evolutionary time.

All of the following inferences are supported by the passage EXCEPT that:

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 4

The correct answer is option 4. This is an EXCEPT question, so the correct choice is the one NOT supported by the passage. Option 4 claims the text attributes the post-COVID market rebound "solely" to displaced sports bettors and treats their entry as "the overriding cause" of the rapid recovery. The passage, however, uses carefully hedged language: "Some of these dynamics are potentially attributable to former sports bettors." The word "some" and the qualifier "potentially" show the author is floating one partial explanation, not declaring a single definitive cause. Option 4 drastically overstates this tentative suggestion.

Option 1 is wrong as a choice for EXCEPT (it matches the passage). The fifth paragraph explicitly states that a first-order tail event "changes the perceived costs of our actions and changes the rules that we play by," which can induce further tail events, directly supporting the inference about learning, altered payoffs, and second-order disturbances.

Option 2 is wrong as a choice for EXCEPT (it matches the passage). The second paragraph explains that heavy-tailed distributions produce "a much higher probability of extreme events" that "occur more frequently and are larger than would be expected under normal distributions," and it ties this to collective settings shaped by contagion, directly supporting this inference.

Option 3 is wrong as a choice for EXCEPT (it matches the passage). The passage uses bank runs and toilet paper scrambles as examples of contagion-driven behaviour in collective settings, and the first paragraph discusses how local behavioural changes can "generate a collective pattern we had aimed to avoid," supporting the idea that local choices cascade into unintended system-wide patterns.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question