Economizing the Poor Reading Answers

Jul 25, 2025

Economizing the Poor Reading Answers contain 14 questions and belong to the assessment system of the IELTS General Reading test. Economizing the Poor Reading Answers must be answered within 20 minutes. In this IELTS reading section, question types include: Write appropriate numbers, Choose your answers from the list below the summary, and Do the following statements agree with the information?

Economizing the Poor Reading Answers offers a comprehensive overview of low-income shoppers using various strategies like discounts and lower-cost options to manage food expenses despite facing higher prices. To practice similar reading tests, candidates can refer to the IELTS Reading Practice Test section.

Check: Get 10 Free Sample Papers
Check: Register for IELTS Coaching - Join for Free Trial Class Now

Topic:

A.Walking down the aisles of a supermarket, low-income shoppers must consider a number of factors including quantity, price, quality and nutritional differences when selecting food products. Food-purchase decisions by the poor often entail tradeoffs among taste, preference and quality factors either real or perceived to meet spending constraints. Within broad product categories such as cereal, cheese, meat and poultry, and fruits and vegetables, shoppers can choose among many substitutable products. Low-income shoppers can stretch their food dollars in a number of ways. They may shop in discount food stores; they may purchase and consume less food than higher-income shoppers; they may purchase low-priced (and possibly lower quality) food products; or they may rely on some combination of all three. A better understanding of how the poor economize in food spending addresses important policy questions raised by researchers, nutrition educators, and food-assistance program managers.

B.Whether the poor face significantly different food prices due to where they shop for food remains an unresolved empirical question. Extensive research over the years has tried to answer the question: Do the poor pay less for food? The Economic Research Service (ERS) in 1997 reviewed the results of studies comparing price differences in grocery stores across different income levels and combined these with current census data on the distribution of low-income households by urbanization type. The ERS study concluded that, in general, the poor face higher prices due to their greater representation in urban and rural areas (as opposed to suburban areas), where food prices tend to be higher.

C.Based on results from household surveys, ERS also found that despite facing higher prices, low-income shoppers spend less than higher-income shoppers for food purchased in food stores. Due to their level of aggregation and lack of in-store sales and promotion information, such surveys shed little light on the economizing practices of these households. To learn more about how low-income shoppers spend less for food despite facing higher prices, we obtained food-store purchase data that incorporate per-capita quantity and expenditure-measure equivalents (household measures adjusted for household size) across income levels.

D.The resulting comparisons describe how individuals with different levels of income vary in their food-spending patterns. By using actual transaction data, detailed information about the product purchased (for example, price, product description, package size, and brand name) as well as the condition of purchase (promotion, coupon, or sale item) was obtained. From these, the average unit cost (per ounce, per pound) for each item was calculated. Low-income shoppers may use four primary economizing practices to reduce their food spending. First, they may purchase a greater proportion of discounted products. Second, they may purchase more private-label products (generic or store brand) versus brand products than higher-income shoppers buy. Third, they may take advantage of volume discounts by purchasing larger package sizes. Fourth, they may purchase a less-expensive food product within a product class. Although quality differences such as freshness, convenience and taste often contribute to prices differences, differences in nutritional quality also are evident.

E.The use of promotions is measured by comparing the percentage of expenditures and quantities of each product purchased on promotion (manufacturers’ coupons, store coupons, store sales, and other promotions). For random-weight cheese, fruit, vegetables and meat in 1998, low-income households (less than $25,000 per year) spent a greater share of expenditures for products on promotion than other households. (This also is true for quantities purchased on promotion.) For poultry, however, middle-income households spent about the same percentage on promotion as low-income households (36% versus 35%, respectively). For both groups, spending for promotion items was at least five percentage points more than spending by the high-income group.

F.Among fixed-weight products, promotion-spending patterns differed. Low-income shoppers purchased the lowest share of total ready-to-eat (RTE) cereal on promotion. This result may be explained by other economizing practices in this product category such as purchasing a larger percentage of private-label products, which are on promotion less often but have lower non-sale prices than the brand-name alternatives. Low-income households spent 11.5% of their RTE cereal expenditures on private-label cereals, while the higher-income households spent lower shares, with those shares decreasing with increasing income levels. A similar pattern is found for the quantities of private-label RTE cereal purchased.

G.Choice of package size also enables consumers to economize by purchasing larger packages, which often have lower unit prices than smaller packages. However, the expenditure shares for RTE cereal and packaged cheese show that low-income households’ purchases of large packages of RTE cereal were less than purchases by other households in 1998. In 1998, households earning $50,000 or more spent 23.1% of cereal purchases on large packages, compared with 15.8% by the low-income group. A similar pattern was found for fixed-weight cheese products. In fact, low-income households had the lowest proportion of large-package purchase of all income groups. This has three possible explanations: low-income shoppers do not have access to stores that sell large packages; they cannot afford to “stock up” on staple products; and they perceive that the cost of storing large packages is higher than the benefits from the volume discount. A combination of these constraints likely accounts for much of the observed difference in package-size purchases and expenditures on those packages by the different income groups.

H.Low-income shoppers may also be economizing by purchasing a less costly combination of fruit and vegetable product types. On average, low-income households paid 11.5% less per pound for vegetables than high-income households, and 9.6% less per pound for fruit. This price measurement is a function of the quality and expenditures that can be matched to household type devoted to fruits and vegetables. Overall, low-income households purchased 3.3% less fruits and vegetables (by weight) per person than high-income households, but they paid 13% less. This implies that these households are choosing less expensive fruits and vegetables.

Questions 27-31

Choose the most suitable headings for paragraphs A-E from the list of headings below. Write appropriate numbers (i-x)

NB There are more headings than paragraphs, so you will not use them all.

LIST OF HEADINGS

i. Information asymmetry of low-income shoppers

ii. Promotion usage models

iii. More spending on promotional random-weight items

iv. Various food-spending patterns

v. Higher prices but less spending

vi. Comprehending economizing of the poor

vil. An unresolved empirical question

vili. The correlation between the location and price

ix. The main economizing practices

x. Spending constraints the poor must consider

27. Paragraph A

Answer: x. Spending constraints the poor must consider

Supporting statement: "Food-purchase decisions by the poor often entail tradeoffs... to meet spending constraints."

Keywords: spending constraints, food-purchase decisions, tradeoffs

Keyword Location: Paragraph A, Line 2

Explanation: Paragraph A focuses on the decisions low-income shoppers make under financial constraints, introducing the idea of tradeoffs among price, quality, and quantity.

28. Paragraph B

Answer: vii. An unresolved empirical question

Supporting statement: "Whether the poor face significantly different food prices... remains an unresolved empirical question."

Keywords: unresolved empirical question, food prices

Keyword Location: Paragraph B, Line 1

Explanation: Paragraph B discusses the uncertainty and continued debate over whether low-income individuals pay more for food due to where they shop.

29. Paragraph C

Answer: v. Higher prices but less spending

Supporting statement: "ERS also found that despite facing higher prices, low-income shoppers spend less..."

Keywords: higher prices, spend less

Keyword Location: Paragraph C, Line 1

Explanation: This paragraph compares the higher prices faced by low-income shoppers with their overall lower spending, a key contrast in behavior.

30. Paragraph D

Answer: ix. The main economizing practices

Supporting statement: "Low-income shoppers may use four primary economizing practices to reduce their food spending."

Keywords: economizing practices, reduce food spending

Keyword Location: Paragraph D, Line 4

Explanation: Paragraph D provides a detailed list of strategies used by low-income shoppers to cut food costs.

31. Paragraph E

Answer: iii. More spending on promotional random-weight items

Supporting statement: "...low-income households... spent a greater share of expenditures for products on promotion..."

Keywords: promotional, expenditures, low-income households

Keyword Location: Paragraph E, Line 2

Explanation: This paragraph focuses specifically on promotional spending patterns for random-weight items like meat and produce.

Questions 32-33

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 2?

YES if the statement agrees with the writer

NO if the statement contradicts the writer

NOT GIVEN if there is no information

32. The surveys of ERS help low-income households develop economizing practices.

Answer: NO

Supporting statement: "Such surveys shed little light on the economizing practices of these households."

Keywords: surveys, economizing practices

Keyword Location: Paragraph C, Line 2

Explanation: The passage clarifies that the ERS surveys do not provide enough detail to help low-income households in this way.

33. The nutritional quality of food product varies in accordance with price differences.

Answer: YES

Supporting statement: "Although quality differences... contribute to price differences, differences in nutritional quality also are evident."

Keywords: nutritional quality, price differences

Keyword Location: Paragraph D, Line 8

Explanation: The passage explicitly states that nutritional quality varies with price, supporting this statement.

Questions 34-36

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 2?

YES if the statement agrees with the writer

NO if the statement contradicts the writer

NOT GIVEN if there is no information

34. Promotions are usually used to attract low-income shoppers.

Answer: NOT GIVEN

Explanation: While the passage discusses how low-income households respond to promotions, it does not specify that promotions are designed for or target them.

35. Brand-name products are promoted more frequently.

Answer: YES

Supporting statement: "...private-label products... are on promotion less often..."

Keywords: private-label, on promotion less often

Keyword Location: Paragraph F, Line 2

Explanation: By stating that private-label products are promoted less, the text implies brand-name products are promoted more.

36. Middle-income households purchased less private-label RTE cereal than low-income households.

Answer: YES

Supporting statement: "Low-income households spent 11.5%... higher-income households spent lower shares, with those shares decreasing with increasing income levels."

Keywords: private-label, RTE cereal, income levels

Keyword Location: Paragraph F, Line 3

Explanation: The data show that private-label cereal purchases decline as income rises, confirming this comparison.

Questions 37-40

Choose your answers from the list below the summary. NB There are more words than spaces, so you will not use them all.

Large-package purchase can benefit low-income households in theory, but it seldom works in reality. There are three possible explanations for this discrepancy: (37).................,

Answer: Transportation

Supporting statement: "Low-income shoppers do not have access to stores that sell large packages"

Keywords: access, stores, large packages

Keyword Location: Paragraph G, Line 5

Explanation: This line suggests that lack of transportation or proximity to large stores restricts the ability of low-income shoppers to buy large packages, making transportation a limiting factor.

(38)............

Answer: Budget

Supporting statement: "They cannot afford to 'stock up' on staple products"

Keywords: afford, stock up, staple products

Keyword Location: Paragraph G, Line 6

Explanation: This indicates that limited financial resources prevent bulk purchasing, identifying budget as a primary constraint.

and (39)....................

Answer: Storage

Supporting statement: "They perceive that the cost of storing large packages is higher than the benefits from the volume discount"

Keywords: cost of storing, large packages, volume discount

Keyword Location: Paragraph G, Line 7

Explanation: The sentence explicitly mentions storage as a concern, completing the trio of reasons low-income households don’t purchase in bulk.

constraints. Also, low-income shoppers may gain (40)..............

Answer: Savings

Supporting statement: "They paid 13% less. This implies that these households are choosing less expensive fruits and vegetables."

Keywords: paid less, less expensive, fruits and vegetables

Keyword Location: Paragraph H, Line 4

Explanation: The price difference indicates that low-income households are economizing, which results in savings on their fruit and vegetable purchases.

on fruit and vegetable products.

LIST OF WORDS

Privilege

Budget

Measurement

Staple

Volume

Quality

Savings

Transportation

Type

Storage