Gender-based pricing, also known as “pink tax,” is an upcharge on products traditionally intended for women which have only cosmetic differences from comparable products traditionally intended for men. In other words, it’s not actually a tax. It’s an “income-generating scenario for private companies who found a way to make their product look either more directed to or more appropriate for the population and saw that as a moneymaker,” explains Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, a lawyer, vice president for the Brennan School of Justice at NYU School of Law, and co-founder of Period Equity
Yet pink tax is not a new phenomenon. The issue was delineated more finely in 2015 when the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs released a report about price disparities for 794 comparable products from 91 brands sold throughout the city. The report examined five different industries, such as personal care products or senior/home healthcare products. These encompassed 35 product categories, such as bodywash or shampoo. In every single of those five industries, consumer goods marketed to women and girls cost more. The same was the case in all but five of the 35 product categories. Researchers looked at 106 products in the toys and accessories category and found that, on average, those intended for girls were priced 7 percent higher.
NYC’s report found women faced an average price difference of 13 percent for personal care products among the 122 products compared in the study. And the authors aptly noted that these items, such as shaving gel and deodorant, are the ones purchased most frequently compared with other categories — meaning that the ____________ add up over time. While this is unfair for all those shopping for these products, that 13 percent price increase hits women and girls who come from lower income households even harder.
Legislative attempts, however, could correct the pink tax. In 1995, then-Assemblywoman Jackie Speier successfully passed a bill that forbade gender pricing of services, such as haircuts.
What does the author mean by “In other words, it’s not actually a tax”?Correct Answer :
Gender-based pricing is only a pricing strategy by private companies.
Solution :
The correct answer is: Gender-based pricing is only a pricing strategy by private companies.
Step-by-step Explanation:
1. Analyze the Passage Context:
In the first paragraph, the passage introduces the concept of gender-based pricing (commonly referred to as the "pink tax") as an upcharge on products traditionally intended for women. Immediately following the mention of "pink tax," the author states: "In other words, it’s not actually a tax."
2. Deconstruct the Meaning:
The author clarifies this statement in the very next line by quoting Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, who explains that it is an “income-generating scenario for private companies who found a way to make their product look either more directed to or more appropriate for the population and saw that as a moneymaker.”
3. Evaluate the Options:
- A tax is traditionally a compulsory financial charge imposed by a government authority.
- The passage emphasizes that the "pink tax" is not an official government levy, but rather a deliberate marketing and pricing strategy employed by private corporations to increase profits.
- Therefore, calling it "not actually a tax" means that it is simply a business pricing strategy used by private companies rather than a government-mandated fee or tax.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
