Logical reasoning PrepTest 107 · Section 3 · Question 21

Incorrect. If the study was new and the other research was old, then this answer might be relevant. However, it's noted that the 65% number has been "consistently" shown, so there hasn't been a shift over time.

Incorrect. This, at best, suggests a reason that there's a pay difference—women generally have jobs that pay less. This doesn't explain why that's the case, nor does it explain the discrepancy between the study (80%) and the other research (65%), so it doesn't really resolve much at all.

Incorrect. This answer is about a "growing" proportion of women holding these positions, which, as we noted in (A), has a temporal element to it that doesn't address the stimulus since research has shown the 65% number to be consistent. If we knew that the 65% number was old and the study was much more recent, then this answer might serve as a correct answer.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Study 1 - Women with full-time jobs make 80% of what men with full-time jobs make
Other research - Women make 65% of what men make

Answer Anticipation:
This argument brings up a supposed paradox between two studies. Paradox questions that feature two studies at odds with one another generally are resolved by information about a key difference between the studies—either what they studied, or how they studied it.

Here, the stimulus itself presents a difference that is likely going to play into the correct answer. The study mentioned looked at individuals employed "full time." However, the other research mentions that it covers all employed individuals.

As such, the difference between full time and part time work is likely going to factor in the correct answer. What would need to be true here for that to explain the discrepancy?

Since the women in the other research were found to make comparatively less money than men when part-time work is taken into account, it must either be the case that part-time work pays better and a higher proportion of men are in those positions, or that part-time work pays less and a higher proportion of women are in those positions (the latter seeming much more likely). Let's find that as an answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the key difference between the two studies that the stimulus notes. The 80% number looked only at full-time work, while the 65% reflected all work. If women are more likely to have lower-paying, part-time work than men, then a study including that information would have a larger pay discrepancy than one looking just at full-time work, which is what we saw.

Key Takeaway:
One common type of Paradox question is one where the results of different studies seem to be at odds with one another. When that's the case, the correct answer generally brings up a key difference between them—either in what they studied, or how they went about studying it. In this question, that difference was highlighted in the stimulus itself, but it will often only show up in the correct answer choice.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't provide an explanation for why this is the case, nor for why studies of just Naota show a different percentage.