Toppercracker
♫
Now Playing
Ambient Radio
♫

Keep Learning?

Sign in to continue practicing.

Critical Reasoning 23 / 52

Paradox/Resolution (Explaining contradictory facts)

Stimulus: In the nation of Arteria, the government recently introduced a subsidy for small-scale organic farmers to reduce the retail price of organic produce, aiming to increase its consumption among low-income households. Data from the first year shows that while the retail price of organic vegetables dropped by 25% as intended, the total volume of organic vegetables purchased by low-income households actually decreased during the same period.

Question: Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent contradiction described above?

(A) High-income households in Arteria increased their consumption of organic produce by 40% due to the lower prices.
(B) During the same year, the price of non-organic "conventional" vegetables dropped by 50% due to an unprecedented harvest surplus.
(C) Most low-income households in Arteria live in "food deserts" where small-scale organic farmers lack the distribution networks to supply local grocery stores.
(D) The subsidy was funded by a new flat tax on all grocery items, which disproportionately affected the purchasing power of low-income families.

Correct Answer: D
1. Breakdown of the Argument:
Goal: Increase organic consumption in low-income households via a price subsidy.
Fact 1: The retail price of organic vegetables dropped by 25%.
Fact 2 (The Paradox): Despite lower prices, the target group (low-income households) bought fewer organic vegetables.
2. Logical Analysis:
To resolve this paradox, we need a factor that specifically explains why a group with limited funds would buy less of a product even when that product becomes cheaper. Option D provides a "net effect" explanation: while the specific item (organic produce) became cheaper, the method used to fund that cheapness (a flat tax on all groceries) reduced the families' overall ability to buy food. If their total grocery budget shrank more than the organic price dropped, they would be forced to cut back on even the subsidized items.
3. Why the other options are incorrect:
(A) This explains what high-income houses did, but it doesn't explain why the low-income households (the subject of the paradox) decreased their consumption.
(B) While conventional vegetables became even cheaper, this might explain why people didn't switch to organic, but it doesn't fully explain why their absolute volume of organic purchases decreased if organic was also cheaper than it used to be.
(C) This explains a barrier to growth, but since the paradox compares the first year of the subsidy to the previous year, it doesn't explain why consumption dropped from its previous level (unless the distribution networks actually got worse).

← →