A question about two texts tests how one writer would respond to another’s argument. Read the question to find who answers whom, then put each text’s claim and reason in a few words. If one text makes a broad prediction, ask whether the other text’s findings support it, limit it, or challenge it. Predict the response and its reason from the responding writer’s text. A choice can give the expected response but still fail by giving a reason that writer never gives.
Hints
- Hint 1
The question asks for Hernández and Kramer’s reply to Text 1. Read Text 1’s claim and the reason behind it.
- Hint 2
In Text 1, look for how certain the job-loss prediction is. What word tells you how often the prediction is meant to hold?
- Hint 3
In Text 2, connect the findings to the proposed reason. How could training and operational efficiencies affect the higher costs described in Text 1?
Step-by-step
Compare the claim with the researchers’ reason
Step 1Find who answers which claim
The question names Hernández and Kramer (Text 2) as the people responding, so we need their view of Text 1’s argument. What does that argument claim? Raising the minimum wage inevitably reduces employment among low-skill workers, because higher costs make employers hire fewer workers or cut hours. It predicts job losses every time.
- Step 2
Find their evidence and reason
Hernández and Kramer examined over 100 city-level increases and found little evidence of the job losses predicted by classical theory. How do they explain that result? Training and more efficient ways of running a business can make up for higher wage costs, allowing employment levels to remain stable. They reject the claim of inevitable job losses, because employers have ways to cover higher costs without cutting jobs.
- Step 3
Check what the responses add
Do the responses give the researchers’ own reason? The discussion of moderate wage hikes doesn’t say how large an increase must be to cause harm, so extremely large goes too far. The response saying always reduce hiring accepts the claim they challenge and adds a reason about measuring job losses that the texts don’t give. The response about reduced turnover shifts to a policy goal the researchers don’t discuss.
- Step 4
Match the reason and strength
Text 2’s phrase offsetting higher labor costs gives the reason for businesses can adapt: gains from training and efficiency can cover higher pay. The wording does not consistently occur challenges an automatic decline without ruling out all job losses. Choice D.