AP English Language: Mixed Skills II (Drill 5)

Question 1. The central claim of the essay is best summarized as

• A) the standard economic prediction that minimum wage increases destroy jobs is selectively wrong, derived from conditions that rarely apply to actual low-wage labor markets, and contradicted by empirical evidence. ✓
• B) minimum wage increases should be implemented gradually and in small increments to avoid the job losses predicted by standard economic models.
• C) the monopsony model of labor markets is more accurate than the competitive model and should replace it as the standard framework in economic policy debates.
• D) economists David Card and Alan Krueger's 1994 study definitively and permanently settled the entire minimum-wage employment debate.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. the author argues throughout that the job-destruction prediction is derived from competitive market assumptions that rarely describe low-wage markets, that monopsony is a better description of many such markets, and that the empirical evidence does not support the standard prediction. Choice B introduces a prescription about gradual increases that the author does not make. Choice C overstates her argument; she argues the monopsony model better describes some markets, not that it should universally replace the competitive model. Choice D overstates the Card-Krueger study's role; it is one piece of evidence within a larger argument.

Question 2. The second paragraph's description of the standard economic model as 'elegant' primarily functions to

• A) express genuine admiration for the model's predictive power before presenting evidence that supports its conclusions.
• B) introduce a counterargument from economists who defend the standard model against the empirical challenges to it.
• C) acknowledge the model's internal logical coherence before showing that its assumptions do not match the markets where minimum wage workers actually work. ✓
• D) suggest that economic models should prioritize elegance over accuracy when communicating with policymakers.

Explanation: Choice C is correct. Calling the model 'elegant' acknowledges its logical appeal; its predictions follow cleanly from its assumptions, before the author pivots to the key problem: the assumptions 'rarely describe the markets where minimum wage workers actually work.' The concession to the model's internal logic makes the critique of its applicability more precise. Choice A misreads the function; elegance here precedes critique, not endorsement. Choice B is not supported; no specific economists are introduced as defenders. Choice D introduces a claim about communication priorities not present in the passage.

Question 3. The author's introduction of the concept of monopsony in the third paragraph primarily serves to

• A) argue that all low-wage labor markets are dominated by a small number of large employers who actively suppress wages.
• B) provide an economic framework that explains why raising the minimum wage in many actual labor markets corrects a market failure rather than creating one. ✓
• C) introduce a historical example of how government intervention in labor markets has previously reduced employment.
• D) suggest that the standard competitive model is completely without value for analyzing any low-wage labor markets.

Explanation: Choice B is correct. Monopsony, where employers have market power to set wages below the competitive rate, is introduced as the economic condition that makes the standard model inapplicable to many low-wage markets, and in which a minimum wage floor corrects rather than distorts the market. Choice A overstates the claim; the author says monopsony describes 'many' such markets, not all. Choice C misidentifies the function; monopsony is not introduced as a historical example of harmful intervention. Choice D overstates the critique; the author argues the competitive model is 'routinely applied beyond the conditions under which it holds,' not that it is worthless.

Question 4. The fourth paragraph's citation of Card and Krueger's study and subsequent research primarily functions to

• A) introduce a counterargument from economists who dispute the monopsony explanation for minimum wage employment effects.
• B) shift the essay's focus from theoretical economic models to a historical account of the minimum-wage debate.
• C) concede that the empirical evidence on minimum wage effects is too mixed to support any firm policy conclusions.
• D) ground the essay's theoretical argument in empirical evidence showing that modest minimum wage increases do not produce the job losses the standard model predicts. ✓

Explanation: Choice D is correct. After establishing the theoretical case (monopsony makes the standard prediction inapplicable), the author supports it with empirical evidence: natural experiments and subsequent research that find small or undetectable employment effects from typical minimum wage increases. Choice A is not supported; no specific critics of the monopsony explanation are introduced. Choice B misidentifies the shift; the paragraph remains within the essay's analytical argument, not a historical account. Choice C misreads the evidence; the author presents the research as supporting a more nuanced picture, not as inconclusive.

Question 5. The final paragraph's acknowledgment that 'a very large and sudden increase in a genuinely competitive market could produce exactly what the standard model predicts' primarily serves to

• A) prevent the essay's argument from being misread as a blanket endorsement of any minimum wage increase regardless of size, market structure, or economic conditions. ✓
• B) introduce a new argument that very large minimum-wage increases are always harmful and should be avoided.
• C) concede that the empirical evidence the author presented in the fourth paragraph applies only to specific industries.
• D) shift the essay's conclusion from economic analysis to a call for more rigorous empirical research on minimum wage effects.

Explanation: Choice A is correct. By acknowledging that the standard model can be right under specific conditions, very large increases in genuinely competitive markets, the author protects her argument from overextension. Her claim is not that the standard model is always wrong but that it is 'routinely applied beyond the conditions under which it holds.' The qualification sharpens rather than undermines her case. Choice B overstates the concession; the author does not say large increases are always harmful. Choice C is not supported; the paragraph does not restrict the fourth paragraph's evidence. Choice D is not supported; no call for more research is made.