Question:

Electric washing machines, first introduced in the United States in 1925, significantly reduced the amount of time spent washing a given amount of clothes, yet the average amount of time households spent washing clothes increased after 1925. This increase is partially accounted for by the fact that many urban households had previously sent their clothes to professional laundries. But the average amount of time spent washing clothes also increased for rural households with no access to professional laundries.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why the time spent washing clothes increased in rural areas?

Show Hint

When faced with a paradox, look for a hidden factor or a change in behavior that the initial statement overlooks. The correct answer will bridge the logical gap between the two contradictory pieces of information.
Updated On: Oct 1, 2025
  • People with access to an electric washing machine typically wore their clothes many fewer times before washing them than did people without access to electric washing machines.
  • Households that had sent their clothes to professional laundries before 1925 were more likely than other households to purchase an electric washing machine when they became available.
  • People living in urban households that had previously sent their clothes to professional laundries typically owned more clothes than did people living in rural households.
  • The earliest electric washing machines required the user to spend much more time beside the machine than do modern electric washing machines.
  • In the 1920's and 1930's the proportion of rural households with electricity was smaller than the proportion of urban households with electricity.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question presents a paradox: a time-saving device (the electric washing machine) led to an increase in the total time spent on the related activity (washing clothes). We need to find an explanation for this paradox, specifically for rural households who did not use professional laundries.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The core of the paradox is that efficiency per task decreased, but total time spent on the task increased. Mathematically, Total Time = (Time per Load) $\times$ (Number of Loads). The passage states that "Time per Load" decreased. Therefore, for the "Total Time" to increase, the "Number of Loads" (or the frequency of washing) must have increased significantly. We are looking for an answer that explains why people started washing more often.
Analyzing the Options:
(A) People with access to an electric washing machine typically wore their clothes many fewer times before washing them than did people without access to electric washing machines.
This provides a direct explanation. The convenience of the new machine changed people's behavior. Instead of waiting for a full load or wearing clothes multiple times, they washed them more frequently. Washing clothes more often, even if each load is quicker, can lead to a greater total amount of time spent on the chore. This resolves the paradox.
(B) Households that had sent their clothes to professional laundries before 1925 were more likely than other households to purchase an electric washing machine when they became available.
This is irrelevant because the question specifically asks to explain the increase in *rural* areas, which the passage notes had "no access to professional laundries."
(C) People living in urban households that had previously sent their clothes to professional laundries typically owned more clothes than did people living in rural households.
This compares urban and rural households but does not explain the *change over time* in washing habits within rural households after they acquired washing machines.
(D) The earliest electric washing machines required the user to spend much more time beside the machine than do modern electric washing machines.
This compares early machines to modern machines. The question requires a comparison between the time spent *before* getting a machine (i.e., hand washing) and *after*. Hand washing was extremely time-consuming, so it's unlikely that even an early, inefficient machine would take more time per load. This option doesn't resolve the paradox.
(E) In the 1920's and 1930's the proportion of rural households with electricity was smaller than the proportion of urban households with electricity.
This explains why the effect might have been less widespread in rural areas, but it does not explain why the time increased for those specific rural households that *did* get a machine.
Step 3: Final Answer:
Option (A) resolves the paradox by showing how the new technology induced a behavioral change (increased washing frequency) that more than offset the time savings per load.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Questions Asked in GRE exam

View More Questions