medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
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 fixed monthly payment in the pilot program was meaningfully larger than the one now proposed for nationwide UBI
- Most citizens receiving the income would choose to use it to invest in education or to start a small business
- A nationwide universal basic income is realistically the only way to substantially reduce poverty
- Employment in the pilot city would actually have fallen over that period had the program not existed
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- 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