Question 200·200 Super-Hard SAT Reading Questions·Information and Ideas
A recent policy review of renewable energy subsidies notes that while direct grants accelerate early adoption, they can inadvertently curb long-term innovation by shielding companies from market pressures. The review proposes pairing limited, short-term subsidies with performance-based milestones instead. Implicit in the review is the assumption that _____
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For SAT questions asking what is "implicit" or what an argument "assumes," first restate the author’s claim and main reasoning in your own words, then ask: What has to be true for this reasoning to work? Eliminate any choices that (1) merely describe a possible side benefit, (2) add an overly specific mechanism not required by the text, or (3) could be false without breaking the recommendation’s logic. The correct answer will be the statement that, if removed, would seriously weaken or break the logic of the recommendation or conclusion.
Hints
Focus on the argument structure
Underline what the review criticizes (direct grants that shield companies from market pressures) and what it recommends (limited subsidies plus performance-based milestones). Ask: what problem is the review trying to solve?
Look at the cause-and-effect language
Pay attention to the phrase about grants curbing long-term innovation by shielding companies from market pressures. What does the review seem to believe about the relationship between market pressures and innovation?
Test each answer as a "must-be-true"
For each option, ask: If this were false, would the review’s recommendation about performance-based milestones still make sense? An assumption, if false, should seriously weaken the argument.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand what an "implicit assumption" is
An implicit assumption is something the author must believe is true for their argument or recommendation to make sense, even though it is not directly stated in the passage. Your job is to find the choice that, if false, would weaken or undermine the review’s reasoning.
Restate the author’s reasoning in your own words
The review says:
- Direct grants speed up early adoption of renewable energy.
- But they can hurt long-term innovation because they shield companies from market pressures.
- So, the review recommends limited, short-term subsidies plus performance-based milestones instead.
This means the review thinks that the way subsidies are structured affects innovation by changing how much companies feel pressure from the market.
Ask: what must be true for the recommendation to be logical?
The key link is: being shielded from market pressures leads to less long-term innovation. The proposed solution (short-term, performance-based subsidies) is supposed to fix that problem.
So the review must believe that when companies do face market or performance pressure, their behavior changes in some important way related to innovation. Without that belief, switching subsidy types wouldn’t be a meaningful solution.
Eliminate choices that don’t match what the argument needs
Evaluate each option as a necessary assumption:
- A) Focuses on price competition specifically. The passage mentions reduced market pressures in general, not price in particular, so this is too narrow to be required.
- B) Emphasizes preventing dependency on public funding. That may be a possible benefit of short-term subsidies, but the passage’s stated concern is specifically innovation being curbed when firms are shielded from market pressures.
- C) Suggests milestones mainly function to keep funding only for technologies with measurable improvements. That could be one effect of milestones, but the argument doesn’t require this particular funding-allocation outcome to be true.
Only one choice directly states the underlying belief about why reduced market pressure would reduce innovation.
Identify the assumption that supports the market-pressure → innovation link
The passage’s logic is: shielding companies from market pressures hurts innovation, so we should design subsidies that do not fully shield them and instead tie support to performance. This only makes sense if the reviewer believes companies won’t strongly innovate on their own unless market incentives push them to do so.
That belief is exactly what is expressed by choice D) companies are unlikely to pursue significant innovation in the absence of market-driven incentives.