Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults

[RonPurewal]

I think the most effective way for a certain type of question is to personalize the problem. In this situation, the passage should talk about people /business and their actions.

^^ right—if the passage is about what people do (or don't do), then there should be some key actor(s) in the problem. in that case, casting yourself in the role of the key actor(s) should go a long way toward giving you the requisite intuition.

but, again, there are no instructions for how to do this. you just have to apprehend the situation as you would in the real world.

[NicoleT643]

Hi Ron,
A is wrong because the conclusion talks about supplement and the answer is about assistance?
Whether the assistance is charged tax or not does not affect the supplement, am I right about this?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

^^ if anything, that choice is even worse!

if government assistance is NOT taxed, then, if actual employment IS taxed, people would end up in a WORSE situation by taking a job.

...so, this choice either STRENGTHENS the argument (if actual employment would be taxed, but government assistance wouldn't), or else does nothing.

[MICHELEZ480]

Could anyone elaborate why D is wrong though?

[esledge]

The most succinct reason that (D) is wrong is that the "income that the government defines as poverty level" is not relevant.

Here's why, and I'm going to make up some numbers.

Fact: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive govt assistance.

Govt proposal:
supplement income from jobs that pay less than govt assistance (so if govt assistance is $17k per year, and someone takes a job paying $14k per year, the govt would pay up to the $3k difference, but no more)
--->employers can hire workers cheaply

Therefore, the EDITORIAL conclusion is:
unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them
to the supplement.

[Note that the editorial makes sense: Why would someone choose to work for (at most) the $17k amount of the govt assistance, when they could NOT work and receive $17k govt assistance? To weaken the editorial, the right answer needs to address this!]

So choice (D) comes along and says that the $17k of govt assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as poverty level; let's say that income level is $26k. Under the government proposal, unemployed adults still have a choice between working for (no more than) $17k or not working for $17k; choice (D) does nothing to refute the editorial conclusion that people "have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement," i.e. it's still true that people have no financial incentive to accept jobs that pay less than $17k.

Notice that even if the $17k govt assistance is more than the poverty income level (say poverty level is $12,800 annual income). People would still "have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement," i.e. no financial incentive to accept jobs that pay less than $17k, when they can collect $17k in government assistance instead.

Thus, (D) does nothing to the argument.