📐 SAT
📝 ACT
🎓 AP Exams
About Contact Blog Privacy Policy

ACT Reading: Comparative Passages (Drill 3)

Drill 3 · Reading · Comparative Passages

0 / 5
←
Previous drill
Drill 2
Next drill
Drill 4
→
More Act Reading Comparative Passages drills
Drill 1 5 questions → Drill 2 5 questions →
Drill 3 — current you are here
Drill 4 5 questions →

About This Drill

ACT Reading: Comparative Passages (Drill 3) is a Reading practice drill covering Comparative Passages. It contains 5 original questions created by Brian Stewart, a Barron's test prep author with over 20 years of tutoring experience.

Comparative passage drills present two short passages on a related topic written from different perspectives. This drill focuses on how each author would respond to the other's argument, a question type that requires understanding each author's position clearly enough to predict their reaction to a specific claim.

Passage

SOCIAL SCIENCE; COMPARATIVE PASSAGES: The following passages are adapted from two essays about universal basic income published in Public Policy Perspectives (©2023). PASSAGE A The case for universal basic income rests not on charity but on architecture. Modern economies generate enormous aggregate wealth while distributing that wealth in increasingly unequal and unstable ways. Automation displaces workers not gradually but in sudden, sector-wide shocks. A universal basic income, a regular, unconditional cash payment to every adult citizen, would provide the floor that markets cannot. It would allow people to leave abusive jobs, pursue retraining, care for children or aging parents, and weather economic disruption without catastrophic loss. Critics call it unaffordable, but the relevant comparison is not to nothing; it is to the existing patchwork of means-tested programs whose administrative costs, eligibility cliffs, and stigma impose their own enormous price. Redesigning that patchwork into a universal floor is not a utopian gesture. It is an engineering problem. PASSAGE B Universal basic income has the appeal of simplicity, and simplicity is genuinely valuable in social policy. But the evidence from pilot programs, while promising in some respects, is too limited to support the sweeping claims advocates make. Most pilots ran for one to three years, involved small samples, and were conducted during periods of economic stability, conditions that may not predict how recipients behave when a permanent income floor is in place. More seriously, UBI as typically proposed would cost trillions annually, requiring either steep tax increases, cuts to existing programs, or both. Advocates who wave away these fiscal concerns underestimate the political economy of actually implementing such a system. The idea deserves rigorous study and carefully designed experiments. It does not yet deserve the confidence with which its proponents advance it.

Questions & Explanations

Question 1. In Passage A, the author's description of UBI as "an engineering problem" is meant to convey that:

  • A) implementing UBI would require the expertise of economists and engineers working together.
  • B) UBI is a practical design challenge with a workable solution, not an idealistic fantasy. ✓
  • C) the main obstacle to UBI is a lack of technical knowledge among policymakers.
  • D) the current welfare system was designed by engineers rather than economists.

Explanation: B is correct. The phrase follows "not a utopian gesture," which is the key contrast, the author is reframing UBI as a solvable design problem rather than an impossible dream. "Engineering problem" signals pragmatism and feasibility. A takes the word "engineering" too literally, the author is using it metaphorically. C introduces an idea (lack of technical knowledge) not present in the passage. D is clearly not supported; no claim is made about who designed the current welfare system.

Question 2. According to Passage B, pilot programs for UBI are limited evidence because they:

  • F) were conducted in countries with very different economic systems than the United States.
  • G) were short-term, small-scale, and conducted during stable conditions unlikely to reflect permanent implementation. ✓
  • H) showed that recipients reduced their work hours, undermining the economic case for UBI.
  • J) were designed by UBI advocates whose bias shaped how the program results were measured

Explanation: G is correct. Passage B lists exactly these limitations: "Most pilots ran for one to three years, involved small samples, and were conducted during periods of economic stability, conditions that may not predict how recipients behave when a permanent income floor is in place." F is not mentioned, no comparison to other countries is made. H is not stated; Passage B does not report specific behavioral outcomes from the pilots. J attributes bias to study designers, which is not a claim the author makes.

Question 3. The author of Passage A would most likely respond to Passage B's fiscal concerns by arguing that:

  • A) UBI pilot programs are sufficient evidence to justify immediate national implementation.
  • B) the cost of UBI should be compared to the total expense of the current means-tested system, not evaluated in isolation. ✓
  • C) tax increases are an acceptable and politically feasible means of funding a basic income
  • D) automation will generate enough new tax revenue to fund a basic income without any spending cuts.

Explanation: B is correct. Passage A directly addresses cost concerns: "the relevant comparison is not to nothing; it is to the existing patchwork of means-tested programs whose administrative costs, eligibility cliffs, and stigma impose their own enormous price." This is the author's preemptive answer to fiscal objections. A is not supported; Passage A does not cite pilot programs at all. C goes beyond what Passage A says; it does not endorse tax increases specifically. D is not mentioned in Passage A; no claim about automation generating tax revenue appears.

Question 4. Both authors would most likely agree that:

  • F) UBI should be implemented immediately to address growing economic inequality
  • G) the current welfare system has significant flaws that justify considering alternatives.
  • H) UBI is an idea worth exploring further, even if disagreements about its readiness exist. ✓
  • J) automation makes a universal income floor economically inevitable within a generation.

Explanation: H is correct. Passage A argues actively for UBI; Passage B says "The idea deserves rigorous study and carefully designed experiments", clearly not dismissing it. Both authors engage seriously with UBI as a legitimate policy concept. F is only Passage A's position; B explicitly says it does not yet deserve the confidence advocates show. G is implied by Passage A (which criticizes the "patchwork" system) but Passage B never addresses the current welfare system's merits or flaws. J is only Passage A's implication; Passage B does not address the inevitability of automation's effects.

Question 5. Which of the following best describes a key difference in how the two authors approach the topic of UBI?

  • A) Passage A focuses on UBI's moral justification, while Passage B focuses on its administrative complexity.
  • B) Passage A argues from structural economic conditions to advocate for action, while Passage B questions whether the evidence yet justifies that confidence. ✓
  • C) Passage A draws on international examples, while Passage B relies primarily on domestic pilot programs.
  • D) Passage A opposes all means-tested programs entirely, while Passage B defends them as preferable to UBI

Explanation: B is correct. Passage A builds from economic conditions (automation, inequality, the cost of means-tested programs) to conclude that UBI is a practical, implementable solution. Passage B acknowledges the idea's appeal and the pilots' promise, but argues the evidence base is too immature to justify advocates' confidence. This is precisely the contrast B captures. A is tempting but wrong; Passage A explicitly rejects the "charity" framing and argues on structural, not moral, grounds. C is not supported; neither passage mentions international examples. D overstates Passage A (it critiques the current patchwork but does not call for eliminating means-testing entirely) and Passage B never defends existing programs.