Text 1Economic researchers Jennifer Liu and Robert Martinez analyzed employment data from cities that implemented universal basic income (UBI) pilot...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Economic researchers Jennifer Liu and Robert Martinez analyzed employment data from cities that implemented universal basic income (UBI) pilot programs. Their study found that participants showed increased entrepreneurial activity and job mobility. Liu and Martinez concluded that UBI programs can effectively stimulate economic dynamism by providing workers with the financial security needed to take professional risks.
Text 2
Policy analyst Sarah Thompson and economist Michael Chang examined the same employment data studied by Liu and Martinez. Thompson and Chang found that when the analysis includes control groups from similar cities without UBI programs, the effects on entrepreneurship and mobility become even more pronounced. They argue that UBI's impact on economic dynamism may be significantly stronger than initial studies suggested.
Based on the texts, how would Thompson and Chang (Text 2) most likely characterize the conclusion presented in Text 1?
As overstated, because the data doesn't account for seasonal variations in employment patterns
As understated, because it doesn't fully capture the magnitude of UBI's effects on economic behavior
As premature, because UBI pilot programs haven't been running long enough to show meaningful results
As biased, because the researchers had predetermined assumptions about UBI's benefits
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: "Economic researchers Jennifer Liu and Robert Martinez analyzed employment data from cities that implemented universal basic income (UBI) pilot programs." |
|
| "Their study found that participants showed increased entrepreneurial activity and job mobility." |
|
| "Liu and Martinez concluded that UBI programs can effectively stimulate economic dynamism by providing workers with the financial security needed to take professional risks." |
|
| Text 2: "Policy analyst Sarah Thompson and economist Michael Chang examined the same employment data studied by Liu and Martinez." |
|
| "Thompson and Chang found that when the analysis includes control groups from similar cities without UBI programs, the effects on entrepreneurship and mobility become even more pronounced." |
|
| "They argue that UBI's impact on economic dynamism may be significantly stronger than initial studies suggested." |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Visual Structure Map: TEXT 1: Initial Study - Liu & Martinez analyzed UBI pilot data - Found: increased entrepreneurship + mobility - Concluded: UBI stimulates economic dynamism. TEXT 2: Follow-up Analysis - Thompson & Chang examined same data - Added control groups, effects more pronounced - Concluded: UBI impact stronger than initially thought
Main Point: When proper control groups are included in UBI research, the positive effects on economic behavior appear even stronger than initial studies indicated.
Argument Flow: Text 1 presents initial positive findings about UBI's effects on entrepreneurship and job mobility. Text 2 builds on this by showing that when the same data is analyzed with proper controls, the positive effects are actually even more significant than the original study suggested.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Thompson and Chang examined the same data as Liu and Martinez but added control groups
- Their key finding was that the effects became "even more pronounced" with proper controls
- They concluded that UBI's impact may be "significantly stronger than initial studies suggested"
- So Thompson and Chang would view Text 1's conclusion as incomplete or conservative
- They found the effects are actually stronger than what Liu and Martinez concluded
- They're not saying Liu and Martinez were wrong, but that their conclusion didn't capture the full magnitude of UBI's positive effects
- The right answer should indicate that Thompson and Chang think Text 1's conclusion underrepresents or doesn't fully capture how strong UBI's effects actually are
As overstated, because the data doesn't account for seasonal variations in employment patterns
✗ Incorrect
- Claims Thompson and Chang would see Text 1 as "overstated" due to not accounting for seasonal variations
- Thompson and Chang actually found stronger effects than Text 1, not weaker effects
- No mention of seasonal variations in either text
As understated, because it doesn't fully capture the magnitude of UBI's effects on economic behavior
✓ Correct
- Says Thompson and Chang would see Text 1 as "understated" because it doesn't fully capture UBI's effects
- Perfect match - Thompson and Chang found effects were "even more pronounced" and impact "significantly stronger than initial studies suggested"
- This directly aligns with our analysis that they view Text 1's conclusion as not capturing the full magnitude
As premature, because UBI pilot programs haven't been running long enough to show meaningful results
✗ Incorrect
- Claims the conclusion is "premature" due to insufficient program duration
- Thompson and Chang don't question the timing or duration of the programs
- They used the same data and timeframe, just with better methodology (control groups)
As biased, because the researchers had predetermined assumptions about UBI's benefits
✗ Incorrect
- Suggests Thompson and Chang would see Text 1 as "biased" with predetermined assumptions
- Thompson and Chang don't question Liu and Martinez's objectivity or assumptions
- They simply found that proper controls reveal stronger effects than initially measured