What is the 'apparent paradox' that the author mentions?
Whether students should pay for university is usually discussed as a question of fairness between graduates and the general taxpayer. Graduates earn more on average, the argument goes, so they should contribute. That is plausible but incomplete. Average earnings hide wide variation, and a flat debt falls hardest on those whose degrees lead to modest incomes. A graduate contribution collected through the tax system, as a percentage of earnings above a threshold, would adjust to what each person can afford. It would also remove the apparent paradox of a loan that many will never fully repay. The proposal is not free of difficulty, for it asks graduates to pay for decades. But it matches what is charged to what is received more closely than a fixed sum can.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: D. A loan that many borrowers will never completely repay
- Step 1: The paradox is 'a loan that many will never fully repay'.
- Step 2: Under the author's scheme, a contribution would adjust and not pose this oddity.
Answer
A loan that many borrowers will never completely repay.
Why not the others: No such paradoxes about taxes, fees, value or thresholds are described.
Practise more Higher education.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.