hard · LSAT
A proposed universal basic income (UBI) would provide every citizen with a fixed monthly payment. Critics argue this will discourage work, but a pilot program in one city showed that employment rates actually increased. Therefore, a nationwide UBI would not lead to a decrease in labor participation.
The argument's conclusion follows only if which one of the following is assumed?
- The pilot program's results were not driven by local conditions that would be absent in a nationwide rollout
- The monthly payment in the pilot program was larger than the payment proposed for the nationwide UBI
- Most citizens would use their basic income to invest in education or to start a small business
- A nationwide UBI is the only way to substantially reduce poverty levels
- Employment rates in the pilot city would have fallen had the program not been implemented
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?