From 1996 to 2004, the average

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct62% picked this

   There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after

   Why this is right

   It sounds like this answer is saying 1996's average income was higher than 1995's. But our job here is to explain why 2004's average income was lower than 1996's. So it doesn't seem like this answer is addressing what we're here to examine. The answer might be tempting if someone was thinking, "If 1996 was atypically high, then 2004 being 10% lower could just be ordinary regression to the mean". In other words, suppose your flower business usually brings in $5000 per month, but then for whatever reason in July, you brought in $7000. No one would be shocked or surprised if in Aug, Sept, Oct, etc. it reverted to $5000 per month. We wouldn't feel the need to blame anyone for the fact that it went from $7k in July down to $5k in October, because that was a return to normalcy. But that's a tough concept to use here, since we don't know that 1995 was "average" and 1996 was an "aberration".

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

   62%
2. B

   Alternate Explanation9% picked this

   For noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than

   This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government mismanaged the economy; it was because for noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes in 2004 than in 1996. (for example, more couples decided that one of them would stay home with the kids)"

   9%
3. C

   Alternate Explanation5% picked this

   During the period, international events beyond the control of the country's government had a negative effect on family

   This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government mismanaged the economy; it was because international events beyond the government's control, had a negative effect on family incomes."

   5%
4. D

   Alternate Explanation12% picked this

   Younger wage earners usually earn less than older ones, and the average age of household wage earners fell during most years

   This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government mismanaged the economy; it was lower because average family income has been declining for decades. There has been a trend where the average age of household wage earners is younger than before, and younger people tend to make less money." In other words, this isn't the fault of anyone mismanaging the economy. This is just a demographic shift. If the average age of wage earners in the family is 40 years old, then you'll be dealing with "career income / higher salaries". If the average age drops to 30 years old, then more family income is comprised of "entry level positions / minimum wage jobs".

   12%
5. E

   Alternate Explanation11% picked this

   The biggest decreases in family income resulted from policies enacted before the ruling party came

   This allows us to say, "average income wasn't 10% lower by 2004 because the government in power at the time mismanaged the economy; it was because the previous government mismanaged the economy. The policies of the government pre-1996 are what created the biggest decreases in family income during the 1996 - 2004 period."

   11%