Paradox: Few consumers planned to reduce their meat intake, yet meat sales fell sharply just one month later. Why?
A. Mentions the ecological impact of fruit. This is irrelevant to why meat sales dropped.
B. Suggests consumers were indifferent. This would explain why sales stayed the same, not why they fell
C. Explains the report's reach. Knowing how they saw the report doesn't explain why sales dropped if they didn't intend to buy less.
D. (Correct) Points to a supply-side change. If grocery stores reduced stock to show environmental concern, sales would fall regardless of consumer demand. This perfectly resolves the paradox.
E. Discusses the beliefs of environmental officials. This does not impact the paradox.
ExpertsGlobal5
Despite a prominent report warning that the current demand for meat is ecologically unsustainable, few consumers planned to reduce their meat intake as a result of the report. Nevertheless, meat product sales in grocery stores fell sharply in June, one month after the report became public.
Which of the following, if true, best explains the reason for the apparent discrepancy described above?
A. The report did not bring up the ecological impact of other food products, although fruit orchards are also known to cause significant ecological damage.
B. Because ecological warnings have been growing increasingly numerous, consumers in June were indifferent to such warnings.
C. The report was publicized through print media and spread widely over the internet.
D. In June, many grocery stores reduced the number of meat products that they stock in order to show their concern regarding the environment.
E. Environmental officials did not believe that the demand for meat posed a threat to the ecology, as only the production of certain types of meat causes significant ecological damage.
|
This Daily Butler Question was provided by
Experts' Global
|
|
Sponsored
|
|
|