Thirty years ago, the percentage

Answer choices

1. A

   Less Impactful than Correct Answer13% picked this

   The amount of food eaten per capita today is identical to the amount of food eaten per

   This helps to rule out the idea that single persons nowadays are spending a lower % of their income on food by simply eating less food. But since this is about all people, not specifically about single persons, it's not as tightly drawn as it could be, and the alternative explanation it's ruling out (maybe they just eat 1/2 as much as before?) is not a compelling one to begin with. So it loses out to the correct answer, in terms of impact.

   13%
2. B

   Partially Weakens2% picked this

   In general, single persons today eat healthier foods and eat less than their counterparts of

   To the extent that single people nowadays eat less, this offers an alternate explanation for why they spend a smaller % of their income on food, which weakens the argument. We don't know whether healthier foods is a change that would result in spending a higher / lower % of income on food, so that part as Unclear Impact.

   2%
3. C

   Correct79% picked this

   Single persons today, on average, purchase the same kinds of food items in the same quantities as they

   Why this is right

   This not only accomplishes what (A) does (it rules out the alternate explanation of "maybe single people just eat less" and accomplishes it even better because it's specifically about single persons), but it also rules out the alternate explanation that single people are spending a lower % on food because they've actually changed their eating habits. So this rules out two alternate explanations for why single people today spent a lower % of their income, and since it establishes that they are basically buying the same food in the same quantity, it's really hard to escape the author's conclusion. If you're buying the same amount of the same stuff, and now that purchase represents a smaller % of your income, then relative size of that purchase compared to your income has shifted in a way that widens the gap between income and food prices.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   79%
4. D

   Less Impactful than Correct Answer3% picked this

   The prices of nonfood items single persons purchase have risen faster than the price of food over

   This strengthens somewhat, in the sense that it makes it sound like food prices have been less subject to inflation than have nonfood prices. But it doesn't have nearly the strengthening power of the correct answer, which tells us "there's no difference in what they're buying or how much they're buying". The correct answer nearly guarantees the conclusion, whereas this answer just suggests a whiff of more plausibility to the conclusion.

   3%
5. E

   Weakens, if anything2% picked this

   Unlike single persons, families today spend about the same percentage of their income on food as they

   If incomes had risen faster than food prices, then families would also be spending a lower % of their income on food (all other things being equal). So since this answer is telling us that families have not seen a lowering % of income spent on food, it makes the author's conclusion less plausible.

   2%