Another financial literacy test

[youbet]

20/20. Not a single question seemed anything other than obvious. There was a clear bias towards free market economics to keep in mind and, as always, it was important to not read anything into the questions. For example, question #1 did NOT say that an increase in the number of fast food restaurants would result in "high quality" food. It said an increase in the number of fast food restaurants would result in "higher quality" food, a relative term. And that's true. An increase in competition generally results in the competitors lowering prices and trying to increase customer satisfaction in order to maintain market share. This is true whether you're talking fast food or auto body repair.

[razztazz]

I got 19. Question # 1 I inferred they were talking about the economics of fast food. I got lucky on that one as some for you took a more global economic view. You are correct. It was deceptively worded.

The one I missed was #3. How much interest "banks CHARGE" would not encourage people to save more. How much interest they PAY would. Poorly worded.

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2017ish Bah. only 95%, but [initially] disagree with the scoring (question 16). [On second thought, the government workers do benefit as well--as long as one doesn't net out the inefficiencies, the answer postulated is correct, I suppose.]

Same here, and I agree with your first impression. Since the gov't is the business doing the (probably incredibly inefficient) producing, only it receives a benefit.

As far as the people missing number one, I think the wording was perfect. I keep telling DW (who is horrible at word problems) you have to disregard the words and look at the numbers.

So I was able to do that with fast food, but not governments. Shows where my biases lie.

[jim584672]

"You answered 20 out of 20 correct for a 100%."

The first question could go either way.

[UnrealizedPotential]

I got 17/20 for 85%.

[HFWR]

A hunnert percent!

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet 20/20. Not a single question seemed anything other than obvious. There was a clear bias towards free market economics to keep in mind and, as always, it was important to not read anything into the questions. ...

Exactly, you have to consider that the test was one about economics, not food preferences.

I thought they were all obvious as well, but I still brain-glitched on the last one. My reading comprehension was fine, they were looking for the wrong answer, but as I analyzed them, my brain switched to looking for the right one, so by getting it wrong, I was right. Kind of.

The other question that tripped me was employed/unemployed - no 'retired'. Yes, that's unemployed, but for the apparent use of comparing to your peers, are retired and unemployed the same peer group?

This was interesting:

Quote:

Economic Literacy Test Results from 03/26/2013 to 03/26/2015 Total Participants: 106,649 Average Score: 14 out of 20 for a 70 % Average Age: 24 Gender: Females - 44 Males - 50,028 Education Level: Grade School - 7,936 High School - 50,169 1-2 years of college - 16,070 4 years of college - 15,792 Graduate School - 12 Employment Status: Employed - 59,972 Unemployed- 24

1000:1 ratio M/F! And how do all those working people have time to take a test?

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2017ish Bah. only 95%, but [initially] disagree with the scoring (question 16). [On second thought, the government workers do benefit as well--as long as one doesn't net out the inefficiencies, the answer postulated is correct, I suppose.]

But which did you choose? I could see "none of the above" (hope that's not getting too political!), but otherwise, what would be more correct than "A"?

Quote:

16. When governments supply products and services, these products and services usually benefit: A. More than one person at a time whether they have paid for it or not. B. Only the people who pay for these products and services. C. Business at the expense of consumers. D. Don't Know.

-ERD50

[Big_Hitter]

I got 110%

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 But which did you choose? I could see "none of the above" (hope that's not getting too political!), but otherwise, what would be more correct than "A"? -ERD50

D?

[2017ish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 But which did you choose? I could see "none of the above" (hope that's not getting too political!), but otherwise, what would be more correct than "A"? -ERD50

Yep, none of the above. Was thinking too much of the negatives and wandered from the basic level of the questioning. As others note, this quiz was not seeking to discover how many econ texts & papers you've read for fun in the past month!

Hence my editing of my original post.

[Meadbh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Exactly, you have to consider that the test was one about economics, not food preferences. I thought they were all obvious as well, but I still brain-glitched on the last one. My reading comprehension was fine, they were looking for the wrong answer, but as I analyzed them, my brain switched to looking for the right one, so by getting it wrong, I was right. Kind of. The other question that tripped me was employed/unemployed - no 'retired'. Yes, that's unemployed, but for the apparent use of comparing to your peers, are retired and unemployed the same peer group? This was interesting: 1000:1 ratio M/F! And how do all those working people have time to take a test? -ERD50

This is today's responses only. Most of the respondents attended high school. Perhaps they currently attend or recently attended high school (their average age is 24) and are employed at a part time job. Perhaps these young men arrived home from their fast food service jobs at McDonalds at 1am and began surfing the Net.

At least that's what this female (1 of 44) graduate educated (1of 12) unemployed (1 of 24) person is surmising.

[sherrywilliam]

90

[cooch96]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet 20/20. Not a single question seemed anything other than obvious. There was a clear bias towards free market economics to keep in mind and, as always, it was important to not read anything into the questions. For example, question #1 did NOT say that an increase in the number of fast food restaurants would result in "high quality" food. It said an increase in the number of fast food restaurants would result in "higher quality" food, a relative term. And that's true. An increase in competition generally results in the competitors lowering prices and trying to increase customer satisfaction in order to maintain market share. This is true whether you're talking fast food or auto body repair.

I believe the answer was simply "higher quality and lower prices". No mention of food, so I assumed higher quality service.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cooch96 I believe the answer was simply "higher quality and lower prices". No mention of food, so I assumed higher quality service.

And assuming higher quality service would indeed take you to the correct answer. I agree, not reading "food" into the answer eliminates the potential for negative bias regarding "fast food" and "quality" that seems to have lead many to an incorrect answer.


Competition tends to drive businesses to improve quality and/or lower prices. Less competition usually means businesses can raise prices and reduce quality and still maintain market share/volume.

[Car-Guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Competition tends to drive businesses to improve quality and/or lower prices. Less competition usually means businesses can raise prices and reduce quality and still maintain market share/volume.

I would generally agree with that. What immediately comes to mind is that it's to bad we don't have more competition in satellite/cable TV services industry.

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 But which did you choose? I could see "none of the above" (hope that's not getting too political!), but otherwise, what would be more correct than "A"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley Same here, and I agree with your first impression. Since the gov't is the business doing the (probably incredibly inefficient) producing, only it receives a benefit.

That's my answer, and I'm sticking with it.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Car-Guy I would generally agree with that. What immediately comes to mind is that it's to bad we don't have more competition in satellite/cable TV services industry.

Great example!

[Cobra9777]

I got 20/20. There were 2 or 3 questions that I had to really think about, and probably guessed on a couple.

[Theseus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley Same here, and I agree with your first impression. Since the gov't is the business doing the (probably incredibly inefficient) producing, only it receives a benefit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley That's my answer, and I'm sticking with it.

Being apolitical about it, and thinking in the context of...

"The government is us; we are the government, you and I." Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. speech, Sept. 9, 1902, Asheville, N.C..

... and with the qualifiers of "usually benefit" in the question, and "More than one person at a time" in answer A, it did seem to be the logical choice.