Nice work!
Review your answers above to learn from any mistakes.
About This Drill
ACT Reading: Social Science (Drill 1) is a Reading practice drill covering Social Science. It contains 5 original questions created by Brian Stewart, a Barron's test prep author with over 20 years of tutoring experience.
Social Science passages cover topics in psychology, sociology, economics, political science, and related fields. As you read, identify the central argument or finding, the evidence used to support it, and how the author interprets that evidence. Questions may ask about main ideas, specific claims, inferences, or the purpose of particular information.
Passage
SOCIAL SCIENCE: This passage is adapted from the article "The Architecture of Defaults" by Priya Mehta (©2018, Behavioral Science Quarterly).
When organ donation rates are compared across countries, a striking pattern emerges. Countries like Germany and the United States, where citizens must actively opt in to become donors, have registration rates below 20 percent. Countries like Austria and Spain, where citizens are presumed to be donors unless they opt out, have rates above 90 percent. The medical outcomes between these countries are different enough that researchers began asking a question that at first sounds cynical: are people making a real choice, or are they simply accepting whatever option requires the least effort?
This question sits at the center of behavioral economics research on what are called "default effects." A default is whatever happens if you do nothing, and decades of research have demonstrated that people disproportionately stick with defaults, even when changing them would take only a few minutes and could have significant consequences for their health, finances, or legal affairs.
Default effects are not explained by laziness alone. Research suggests several overlapping mechanisms. First, defaults can function as implicit recommendations; people assume that whoever designed the system chose the default for a reason, so accepting it feels rational rather than passive. Second, changing a default requires making an active decision, which carries psychological costs: the effort of deciding, the discomfort of taking responsibility for an outcome, and the possibility of regret if the active choice turns out to be wrong. Sticking with the default sidesteps all of this.
These dynamics have been applied deliberately by policymakers and employers in recent years. Many companies now automatically enroll employees in retirement savings plans rather than requiring them to sign up, a change that has increased savings participation rates without removing anyone's ability to opt out. The same logic has been applied to energy use: utility customers enrolled by default in renewable energy programs participate at much higher rates than those who must choose to join.
Critics argue that default-setting constitutes a form of manipulation, steering people toward outcomes they might not consciously endorse. Proponents counter that all systems have defaults, the question is not whether to have them but who designs them and toward what ends. The debate turns less on whether defaults influence behavior (they clearly do) than on whether that influence can be exercised ethically.
Questions & Explanations
Question 1. The main purpose of the passage is to:
-
A) argue that opt-out systems are more ethical than opt-in systems in all policy contexts.
-
B) explain the phenomenon of default effects and examine how they have been applied. ✓
-
C) compare organ donation rates across countries in order to recommend a universal policy.
-
D) demonstrate that behavioral economics has proven people are incapable of rational decision-making.
Explanation: Choice B is correct. The passage introduces default effects through the organ donation example, explains the psychological mechanisms behind them, and discusses how they have been applied in retirement savings and energy policy. It does not advocate for a single policy position. Choice A is incorrect: the passage presents both sides of the ethical debate. Choice C mischaracterizes the organ donation example as the main point; it is an illustration, not the central focus. Choice D overstates the research's conclusions; the passage does not claim people are irrational.
Question 2. According to the passage, one reason people tend to accept defaults rather than changing them is that:
-
F) most people are unaware that a default option exists.
-
G) changing a default requires making an active decision, which carries psychological costs. ✓
-
H) defaults are usually the option that benefits people the most.
-
J) system designers typically make it technically difficult to change defaults.
Explanation: Choice G is correct. The passage explicitly states that changing a default 'requires making an active decision, which carries psychological costs', including the effort of deciding and the discomfort of taking responsibility. Choice F is not supported; the passage discusses people who are aware of the default but stick with it anyway. Choice H is a paraphrase of one mechanism (defaults as implicit recommendations) but is presented as people's assumption, not as a general truth. Choice J introduces technical barriers not mentioned in the passage.
Question 3. It can reasonably be inferred from the passage that automatic enrollment in retirement savings plans was adopted primarily because:
-
A) employees had complained that signing up for savings plans was too complicated.
-
B) policymakers wanted to remove employees' ability to choose their savings rate.
-
C) making enrollment the default was expected to increase participation without mandating it. ✓
-
D) research showed that most employees preferred not to make their own financial decisions, as described in the passage.
Explanation: Choice C is correct. The passage states that automatic enrollment 'increased savings participation rates without removing anyone's ability to opt out', the design was intended to use default effects to boost participation while preserving freedom of choice. Choice A speculates about employee complaints not mentioned in the passage. Choice B contradicts the passage, which emphasizes that the ability to opt out is preserved. Choice D overstates the research; the passage does not claim employees prefer to avoid financial decisions.
Question 4. As it is used in the passage, the word 'disproportionately' most nearly means:
-
F) unfairly.
-
G) to a greater degree than would be expected. ✓
-
H) in a way that causes harm.
-
J) with great consistency across all situations.
Explanation: Choice G is correct. 'Disproportionately' here means that people stick with defaults at a rate that exceeds what rational decision-making models would predict, more than their own stated preferences or conscious reasoning would suggest. Choice F implies unfairness, which is not the meaning in this context. Choice H adds a judgment about harm not present in the passage. Choice J implies perfect consistency, which overstates the claim.
Question 5. The passage suggests that those who criticize default-setting and those who defend it primarily disagree about:
-
A) whether default effects actually influence the choices people make.
-
B) whether defaults can be designed in a way that respects people's autonomy. ✓
-
C) which countries have the most effective organ donation policies.
-
D) whether behavioral economics research has been conducted rigorously, as the passage frames it.
Explanation: Choice B is correct. The passage states that the debate turns on 'whether that influence can be exercised ethically', critics see default-setting as manipulation, while proponents argue that ethical defaults are possible. Choice A is incorrect: the passage says both sides agree defaults influence behavior ('they clearly do'). Choice C narrows the debate to organ donation, which is just one example in the passage. Choice D introduces a methodological dispute not present in the passage.