Question 164·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 Classical labor economists argue that raising the minimum wage inevitably reduces employment among low-skill workers. According to this view, when employers are forced to pay higher hourly rates, they respond by hiring fewer workers or by cutting hours, producing an overall decline in job opportunities for the very people the policy is intended to help.
Text 2 Examining more than 100 city-level minimum-wage increases in the United States over the past decade, economists Elena Hernández and Paul Kramer found little evidence of the job losses predicted by classical theory. They propose that moderate wage hikes can prompt employers to invest in training and operational efficiencies, offsetting higher labor costs and allowing employment levels to remain stable.
Based on the texts, how would Hernández and Kramer (Text 2) most likely respond to the argument presented in Text 1?
For cross-text connection questions, quickly summarize each text’s main claim in 5–10 words, then note whether the second text supports, qualifies, or challenges the first. As you evaluate the answer choices, eliminate any that (1) contradict what either text clearly states, (2) add new claims or conditions not mentioned in the passages, or (3) change the focus to a different issue. Choose the option that best captures how the second text’s evidence and explanation respond to the first text’s argument, using specific wording from the passages (“inevitably,” “little evidence,” “invest in training,” etc.) as your guide.
Hints
Clarify each text’s main point about employment
First, restate in your own words what Text 1 is claiming will happen to employment when the minimum wage goes up, then restate what Text 2 says actually happens in the cases it studied.
Notice agreement vs. disagreement
Ask yourself: Does Text 2’s evidence support Text 1’s prediction, or does it challenge it? Look especially at the phrase “little evidence of the job losses predicted by classical theory.”
Look for the explanation offered in Text 2
Text 2 doesn’t just report results—it suggests a reason those results occur. Identify what Text 2 says employers do in response to moderate wage hikes, and keep that in mind when checking the answer choices.
Eliminate choices that misstate or change the focus
Cross out any option that says Hernández and Kramer fully accept the classical prediction, or that changes the topic away from whether employment falls when the minimum wage rises.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand Text 1’s main claim
Text 1 explains the classical view: when the minimum wage goes up, employers are “forced to pay higher hourly rates,” so they “respond by hiring fewer workers or by cutting hours.” The key word is “inevitably”—according to this view, higher minimum wages must reduce job opportunities for low-skill workers.
Understand Text 2’s main claim and evidence
Text 2 describes a study of “more than 100 city-level minimum-wage increases.” Hernández and Kramer “found little evidence of the job losses predicted by classical theory.” That means their real-world data do not match the classical prediction in Text 1. They also propose a reason: “moderate wage hikes can prompt employers to invest in training and operational efficiencies,” which can offset higher labor costs and let “employment levels remain stable.”
Figure out how Text 2 would respond to Text 1
The question asks how Hernández and Kramer (Text 2) would respond to the argument in Text 1. Since their data show that the predicted job losses often do not appear, and they offer a specific mechanism (employers adjust their operations), they would disagree with the idea that employment decline is inevitable and would emphasize employers’ ability to adapt.
Match that response to the correct answer choice
Now compare each answer choice to what Text 2 actually says:
- (A) talks about harm only with “extremely large” increases, which Text 2 never discusses.
- (B) says they agree that higher labor costs always reduce hiring, but think the effect is too small to measure; Text 2 instead finds “little evidence” of the predicted job losses and offers an adjustment explanation.
- (C) shifts the focus away from employment effects, but Text 2 is directly about employment levels.
- (D) says the predicted employment decline does not consistently occur because businesses can adapt in ways the classical model overlooks. This directly matches Text 2’s findings (little evidence of job losses) and their explanation (investment in training and efficiencies), so D is the correct answer.