How does the author respond to the dilemma?
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: E. By suggesting that it assumes a single universal payment is the only option
- Step 1: The author writes that the dilemma 'assumes that the only choice is a universal payment at a single level'.
- Step 2: A smaller payment combined with targeted support is offered as an alternative.
Answer
By suggesting that it assumes a single universal payment is the only option.
Why not the others: The author does not argue about affordability at any level, deny poverty traps, abandon the idea or remove targeted support.
Practise more Welfare.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.