Question 156·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1
Economist Laila Mensah argues that a universal basic income (UBI) could strengthen labor markets rather than weaken them. She writes that while some workers might reduce their paid hours, many would feel freer to change jobs, pursue training, or launch small businesses, actions that "can raise overall productivity and well-being with only a minor effect on aggregate employment." Mensah contends that critics who predict a large collapse in work participation underestimate people's desire for meaningful activity.
Text 2
In a two-year Finnish trial that began in 2017, two thousand unemployed adults received €560 each month with no conditions attached. Researchers reported a slight decrease in the average number of weekly hours worked, no statistically significant change in employment rates, and notable improvements in life satisfaction and mental health among recipients. Lead investigator Olli Kangas said the results "challenge the idea that unconditional cash inevitably discourages work."
Question
Based on the texts, how would Mensah, the author of Text 1, most likely interpret the findings of the Finnish trial described in Text 2?
For cross-text questions, first summarize each text’s main point in a short phrase (e.g., “UBI helps, small job impact” vs. “trial shows small change, better well-being”). Then, because the question asks how one author would interpret the other text, filter everything through that author’s viewpoint: ask whether the second text’s evidence supports, contradicts, or modifies their claim. Finally, eliminate answer choices that misstate either text (for example, exaggerating effects or adding conditions not mentioned) and choose the option that accurately reflects both the original claim and the new evidence.
Hints
Identify the key idea in Text 1
Look back at what Mensah predicts will happen to both well-being and employment levels if a universal basic income is introduced. Is she expecting a big drop in work or only a small change?
Focus on the actual outcomes in Text 2
In the Finnish trial, pay attention to what changed and what didn’t: How did hours worked, employment rates, and life satisfaction/mental health change?
Compare the prediction to the results
Ask yourself: Do the trial results look more like Mensah’s expectations or more like the critics’ fears mentioned in Text 1?
Use that comparison to filter choices
Eliminate any answer that claims the trial shows a big drop in work or that it proves unconditional cash is harmful, then pick the option that best reflects both the limited employment impact and the improvement in well-being.
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify Mensah’s main claim in Text 1
Reread the key sentence in Text 1: Mensah says UBI can "raise overall productivity and well-being with only a minor effect on aggregate employment," and that critics wrongly predict "a large collapse in work participation." So she expects:
- Better well-being (and productivity)
- Only a small change in total employment, not a big drop. She disagrees with critics who say people will stop working.
Summarize the results of the Finnish trial in Text 2
Now focus on what actually happened in the Finnish trial:
- "slight decrease" in weekly hours worked
- "no statistically significant change in employment rates" (so no major collapse in employment)
- "notable improvements in life satisfaction and mental health"
- The lead investigator says the results "challenge the idea that unconditional cash inevitably discourages work." So the trial found better well-being and no big drop in employment.
Connect Mensah’s expectations to the trial’s findings
Compare the two texts:
- Mensah expects UBI to improve well-being with only a minor effect on employment.
- The trial shows clear well-being improvements and no large decline in employment. From her perspective, these results would not look threatening or disappointing; they would look like evidence that her prediction is realistic and that the critics are wrong.
Match that interpretation to the answer choices
Now test each option against this connection:
- Any choice saying the trial shows a large negative effect on work or supports the critics cannot fit, because the trial shows only a slight change in hours and no major change in employment, and it "challenges" the idea that cash discourages work.
- Any choice claiming the trial shows UBI fails to deliver benefits is wrong, because the trial reports strong gains in life satisfaction and mental health. The only option that says the trial supports Mensah’s idea that UBI can improve well-being without causing a major decline in overall employment is: “They confirm her view that a UBI can improve individuals’ well-being without causing a major decline in overall employment.”