Reading and Writing: Craft and Structure
SAT Question of the Day for October 9, 2026
Text 1:
Economist Priya Chandrasekaran argues that universal basic income (UBI) programs must be evaluated not by their effect on aggregate labor supply but by their impact on occupational mobility. In a 2024 study of a pilot program in Stockton, California, Chandrasekaran found that recipients were more likely to transition from part-time, unstable employment to full-time positions aligned with their training. She concludes that UBI functions less as a consumption subsidy and more as a risk buffer that enables workers to pursue better-matched employment without the threat of destitution during the transition.
Text 2:
Critics of universal basic income overstate the complexity of its effects. The fundamental economic mechanism is straightforward: unconditional cash transfers increase recipients' reservation wages, reducing their willingness to accept low-paid work. While advocates frame this as "empowerment," the predictable consequence is a contraction in labor supply at the lower end of the wage distribution, raising costs for employers and consumers who depend on services provided by low-wage workers.
Based on the texts, which choice best describes how the author of Text 1 would most likely characterize the argument presented in Text 2?
- A.As a reductive analysis that conflates occupational transitions with labor supply withdrawal and overlooks improved employment matching.Correct answer
- B.As a well-supported economic model that correctly identifies the primary mechanism through which unconditional cash transfers affect labor markets overall.
- C.As an argument that, while flawed in its framing, ultimately reaches the same policy conclusion that Chandrasekaran herself endorses regarding the outcomes of employment programs.
- D.As a perspective that usefully highlights employer cost concerns but does not go far enough in criticizing the structural limitations inherent in all universal basic income pilot programs.
Explanation
Chandrasekaran's central finding is that UBI enables workers to move from unstable part-time work to better-matched full-time positions — an occupational mobility effect. Text 2 frames UBI's effect as simply raising reservation wages and reducing labor supply at the low end. Chandrasekaran would likely view this as reductive because it treats transitions to better employment as equivalent to labor withdrawal, missing the improved matching her study documented. The option describing Text 2 as well-supported is wrong because Chandrasekaran's own research directly contradicts Text 2's characterization of UBI's mechanism. The option about reaching the same policy conclusion is wrong because Text 2 frames UBI negatively while Chandrasekaran frames it positively as a risk buffer. The option about Text 2 not going far enough in criticizing UBI is wrong because Chandrasekaran is an advocate, not a critic, of UBI programs.
How to use this question
Try the question before you read the explanation: cover it, commit to an answer, and then compare your reasoning with the worked solution. If you missed it, note the step where your approach went wrong rather than only the correct letter, and look for that same step the next time you see a similar question.
Every past question stays here with its answer and explanation, and a new question is posted every day.