What is the dilemma that critics pose?
A universal basic income would pay every adult a modest sum regardless of work or means. Supporters say it would remove poverty traps, because a person's benefit would not vanish the moment they took a job, and would save the cost of testing eligibility. Critics say it would be unaffordable if set high enough to live on, and pointless if set low enough to afford. The dilemma is real, but it assumes that the only choice is a universal payment at a single level. A smaller payment combined with existing targeted support might improve work incentives without the cost of a large universal scheme. Trials are the right way to find out. What is not helpful is to argue from slogans, either that it would liberate people from drudgery or that it would make them idle.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. A basic income is unaffordable if high enough to live on and pointless if low enough to afford
- Step 1: The passage states the critics' view: unaffordable if high, pointless if low.
- Step 2: That is the dilemma.
Answer
A basic income is unaffordable if high enough to live on and pointless if low enough to afford.
Why not the others: Complexity, rising unemployment, voter popularity and harm to the rich are not the critics' dilemma, which concerns the level of the payment: unaffordable if high, pointless if low.
Practise more Welfare.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.