Text 1: Economist Dr. Rachel Green supports universal basic income (UBI). "As automation eliminates jobs, UBI provides economic security," Green argues. "Pilot programs in Finland and Kenya show recipients used funds responsibly and often started small businesses."
Text 2: Economist Dr. William Chen opposes UBI on practical grounds. "The cost would be astronomical—trillions annually," Chen writes. "Furthermore, guaranteed income removes the incentive to work. Targeted assistance programs are more efficient and less likely to create dependency."
Which statement would both economists most likely agree with?
Automation will significantly impact employment in coming decades
Pilot programs provide sufficient evidence for large-scale implementation
Work incentives should not be a concern in economic policy
Targeted assistance programs are preferable to universal programs
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the correct answer. Green explicitly cites automation's job-eliminating effects as justification for UBI. While Chen doesn't mention automation, his concern about work incentives suggests he too sees jobs as valuable and worth preserving—implying awareness of employment challenges.
- Evidence: Green's UBI support stems from automation concerns.
- Reasoning: Chen's objections don't dispute the automation premise, only the UBI solution.
- Conclusion: Both likely agree automation affects employment; they disagree on the response.
Choice B is incorrect because Chen would likely dispute this. Choice C is incorrect because Chen explicitly worries about work incentives. Choice D is incorrect because Green supports universal, not targeted, programs.