- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether the fairness of a flat congestion charge is the primary concern that should guide evaluation of the policy
This distinguishing points of view question asks about the fundamental disagreement between two perspectives on congestion pricing policy evaluation. Passage A's skeptics are primarily concerned with fairness issues—whether flat charges function like regressive taxes and burden lower-income drivers. They suggest congestion pricing might be defensible only with targeted rebates and transit improvements to address distributional harms. Passage B argues that fairness concerns, while important, miss the more fundamental question of what pricing reveals about urban mobility patterns and long-term behavior change. Passage B prioritizes whether policies reshape travel behavior over short-term fairness considerations. The authors would disagree about whether fairness should be the primary evaluative criterion. Choice (A) is tempting since both acknowledge pricing can reduce traffic, but this represents agreement, not the core disagreement about evaluation priorities.
- The passage indicates that the author's view differs from that of advocates of the universal museum in that the author
Answer: maintains that returning objects can sometimes enhance scholarship by creating new collaborations.
The author argues for relational stewardship in which some returns can broaden research through collaboration, whereas universal-museum advocates emphasize retention. The other options misattribute extreme or dismissive positions the author explicitly rejects.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether presumptive release for most nonviolent charges is preferable to retaining a reformed version of cash bail
This distinguishing points of view question asks about the core disagreement between two approaches to cash bail reform. Passage A advocates for presumptive release for most nonviolent charges, coupled with reminders and limited detention for demonstrable threats, arguing the central flaw of cash bail is using money as a proxy for risk. The author favors eliminating cash bail in favor of risk assessment tools and other alternatives. Passage B argues for reforming bail rather than abolishing it, proposing to limit amounts, offer non-monetary conditions, and expand pretrial services while maintaining some role for bail as an administrable incentive. The fundamental disagreement is whether cash bail should be largely eliminated in favor of presumptive release (Passage A) or reformed but retained (Passage B). Choice (A) might seem tempting since both acknowledge cash bail can create wealth-based detention, but this represents shared understanding rather than disagreement.
- According to the passage, which statement best distinguishes the author's account from both the formalist and the customary schools described?
Answer: Legal outcomes emerged from iterative negotiation in which imperial scripts and local practices were selectively invoked and recombined, producing hybrid institutions that varied across contexts.
The author emphasizes negotiated hybridity and variation shaped by actors translating between imperial and local norms, which E captures. A and D echo the formalist position, B aligns with the customary view, and C overgeneralizes a geographic limit the author does not assert.
- The passage indicates that the author's view differs from that of proponents of algorithmic scoring primarily in that the author
Answer: regards algorithmic scoring as a useful screening tool but warns that its proxies can entrench bias and must yield to deliberation when warranted, whereas proponents of algorithmic scoring treat top scores as dispositive.
The author endorses rubrics for transparency but insists that human deliberation can override scores to avoid proxy-driven bias, unlike algorithm proponents who treat the highest score as decisive. The other choices misstate the author's support for transparency, his rejection of pure lottery or pure polling, and his inclusion of expert review.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether ethical stewardship generally requires meaningful transfer of control to descendant communities or instead generally favors shared guardianship without a presumption of return
This distinguishing points of view question asks where the authors disagree about museum repatriation's appropriate goal. Passage A argues that 'ethical stewardship requires meaningful transfer of control' to descendant communities, supporting repatriation as necessary to 'repair historical injustices and allow descendant communities to interpret their heritage on their own terms.' The author favors meaningful transfer of control to originating communities. Passage B advocates for 'shared guardianship: transparent provenance research, rotating exhibitions, and collaborative interpretation that gives source communities authority over narratives without necessarily transferring permanent ownership' and warns against 'a presumption of return.' The fundamental disagreement is whether ethical stewardship generally requires meaningful transfer of control to descendant communities (A) or instead generally favors shared guardianship without a presumption of return (B). Choice (B) captures this core difference about the appropriate goal and structure of ethical museum stewardship. Track each author's vision of what constitutes proper resolution of contested ownership.
- The passage indicates that the author's perspective differs from that of traffic engineers mainly in that the author
Answer: prioritizes the co-benefits of living canopy and warns that high-albedo surfaces can create glare and pedestrian discomfort, whereas traffic engineers emphasize reflectivity metrics and speedy procurement.
The author supports a shade-centric, tree-forward approach that acknowledges but limits high-albedo treatments due to glare and comfort concerns, unlike engineers who prioritize reflectivity. The other answers misstate the author's support for supplemental material changes, distributed solutions, and skepticism about replacing trees with technology.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether the principal policy value of UBI lies in simplifying welfare administration and reducing benefit cliffs, or whether that simplification risks diverting support from essential public services
These questions test your ability to spot disagreements in policy values, like whether UBI's simplification is a net positive or a risk to services. Passage A views UBI as a way to streamline welfare, reduce cliffs, and respect autonomy, with qualifications on design, while Passage B sees it as potentially undermining collective investments, preferring targeted fixes. Choice A distinguishes this by pitting A's administrative benefits against B's diversion risks. A tempting wrong like C confuses a shared recognition—both accept cliffs exist and affect incentives—with disagreement, but they agree on this fact. B dismisses details both passages treat as relevant, like payment frequency. Always list out each view's beliefs and hedges to separate true oppositions from mutual concessions.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether algorithmic hiring tools, if properly constrained and audited, can play a constructive role in reducing bias
This distinguishing points of view question focuses on the disagreement about whether algorithmic hiring tools can play a constructive role in reducing bias. Passage A argues that algorithmic tools can reduce bias if properly designed, audited, and constrained, noting they can address inconsistencies in human interviews while acknowledging risks like biased training data. The author believes these tools can assist human judgment constructively. Passage B argues that algorithmic hiring tools cannot adequately address bias because the problem is institutional rather than merely informational—firms may optimize for historical 'success' that reflects exclusion, and technical fixes cannot substitute for institutional reform. The core disagreement is whether properly constrained and audited algorithmic tools can constructively reduce bias (Passage A) or whether they inevitably entrench existing biases regardless of safeguards (Passage B). Choice (A) might seem appealing since both acknowledge training data risks, but this represents shared understanding rather than the fundamental disagreement about algorithmic tools' potential.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether making tests optional is more likely to reduce inequity in admissions than to shift reliance onto other unequal signals
This distinguishing points of view question asks where the authors would most likely disagree about test-optional policies. Passage A supports test-optional admissions as potentially beneficial, arguing it can help 'disadvantage capable students from under-resourced schools' and create 'a more socioeconomically diverse applicant pool.' Passage B warns that 'removing tests can shift advantage toward applicants with greater access to enrichment and coaching' and argues test-optional policies may actually increase rather than reduce inequity. The fundamental disagreement is whether making tests optional reduces inequity (A's view) or shifts reliance to other unequal signals that may worsen disparities (B's view). Choice (B) perfectly captures this core tension about test-optional policies' likely effects on equity. Choice (A) is tempting because both acknowledge tests correlate with income, but they share this understanding rather than disagree about it. Identify each author's prediction about test-optional policies' net effects before comparing their stances.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether universality in cash payments is an advantage that justifies a UBI as a foundation for welfare policy or a drawback that diverts limited resources from those most in need
This distinguishing points of view question requires identifying the core disagreement about universal basic income's (UBI) universality feature. Passage A supports UBI, arguing that 'unconditional cash can reduce poverty, simplify welfare administration, and provide a buffer against job displacement' while presenting universality as beneficial for efficiency and dignity. The author treats universality as an advantage that justifies UBI as foundational policy. Passage B warns that 'providing payments to high-income households can reduce funds available for those with the greatest need' and argues 'the central aim should be adequacy for the vulnerable, not uniformity for all.' The fundamental disagreement is whether universality in cash payments is an advantage that justifies UBI as a foundation for welfare policy (A) or a drawback that diverts limited resources from those most in need (B). Choice (B) captures this core tension about whether universal or targeted approaches better serve anti-poverty goals. Focus on each author's view of whether universality helps or hinders effective resource allocation.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether noncompete agreements can be justified in any circumstances to protect trade secrets and training investments
This distinguishing points of view question focuses on the disagreement about whether noncompete agreements can ever be justified. Passage A argues that noncompetes can be justified in limited circumstances to protect genuine trade secrets and training investments, proposing reforms that would ban them for most workers while permitting narrowly tailored restrictions for senior employees with access to confidential information. Passage B argues for near-total prohibition, contending that existing legal tools like trade secret law already address legitimate concerns without restricting job mobility, and that noncompetes function primarily as anti-competitive bargaining levers. The fundamental disagreement is whether noncompetes can ever be justified even in limited circumstances (Passage A) or whether they should be nearly completely prohibited (Passage B). Choice (B) might seem appealing since both acknowledge alternative legal tools exist, but this represents shared factual knowledge rather than the core disagreement about justification.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether SSB taxes, when designed with equity safeguards, are an effective health intervention or whether they are likely to be overstated relative to structural reforms to food environments
This distinguishing points of view question requires identifying the core disagreement about sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax effectiveness. Passage A supports SSB taxes as beneficial health policy, arguing they can 'shift consumers toward water or unsweetened alternatives' and are 'effective when designed with attention to distributional effects' through equity safeguards. The author treats SSB taxes as valuable interventions when properly designed. Passage B argues that 'as a health intervention they can be overstated, especially if political leaders treat them as substitutes for broader reforms' and advocates instead for 'addressing structural determinants: improving food retail access, regulating marketing to children, and reforming agricultural subsidies.' The fundamental disagreement is whether SSB taxes, when designed with equity safeguards, are effective health interventions (A) or whether they are likely to be overstated relative to structural reforms to food environments (B). Choice (B) captures this core difference about SSB taxes' effectiveness and appropriate role in health policy. Focus on each author's assessment of whether taxes address root causes or merely surface symptoms.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether systematic street redesign should be treated as the primary lever for reducing fatalities or whether reducing driving exposure through transit and demand management is more central
This distinguishing points of view question asks where the authors disagree about traffic safety strategy priorities. Passage A supports Vision Zero approaches focused on 'street redesign, speed management, and enforcement,' arguing that 'systematic design changes can meaningfully reduce fatalities' through measures like protected bike lanes and speed reduction. The author treats systematic street redesign as the primary lever. Passage B argues that 'a more comprehensive safety strategy would prioritize reducing vehicle miles traveled through better transit, pricing parking, and coordinating land use with mobility' and warns that 'focusing on physical redesign can divert funds from transit improvements that reduce driving exposure altogether.' The fundamental disagreement is whether systematic street redesign should be treated as the primary lever for reducing fatalities (A) or whether reducing driving exposure through transit and demand management is more central (B). Choice (B) captures this core difference about which approach should be prioritized in traffic safety policy. Track each author's view of what constitutes the most effective intervention strategy.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether blanket bans on smartphones are generally preferable to policies that teach and manage responsible use
This distinguishing points of view question centers on the authors' different approaches to smartphone policy in schools. Passage A advocates for a nuanced middle position—limiting unsupervised phone use while preserving educational and accessibility functions, rather than implementing blanket bans. The author sees restrictions as potentially valuable but warns against treating them as substitutes for broader educational investments. Passage B takes a more permissive stance, arguing that rather than prohibiting phones broadly, schools should integrate digital literacy into curriculum and establish transparent norms, with restrictions only in specific contexts like exams. The fundamental disagreement is whether blanket bans or teaching responsible use should be the preferred approach. Choice (C) might seem appealing since both mention enforcement and conditions, but both authors actually agree these factors matter—they disagree on the underlying policy framework.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether improving teaching should be pursued primarily through sustained coaching aimed at developing instructional skills, or primarily through adopting coherent high‑quality curricula that structure instruction
The pattern here involves contrasting approaches to improvement, like whether coaching or curriculum is the primary lever for better teaching. Passage A prioritizes building teacher skills via sustained coaching, seeing it as superior to external tools, whereas Passage B stresses high-quality curricula to structure instruction, with development as supportive. Choice A distinguishes this by opposing coaching-focused skill development to curriculum-led structuring. A distractor like C might confuse shared views—both see professional development as useful—with disagreement, but they align on its potential. D exaggerates, as A doesn't deem curriculum irrelevant, and B doesn't say it's always sufficient. Remember to track beliefs systematically to differentiate core disputes from emphases or agreements.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether human-in-the-loop review, if institutionally supported, is a valuable safeguard or whether it is typically a legal fiction that should be replaced by deployment limits and validation requirements
This distinguishing points of view question requires identifying the core disagreement about human-in-the-loop review's value. Passage A supports requiring human oversight in automated decisions, arguing it 'can catch errors, incorporate contextual information not captured in data, and provide moral accountability' while acknowledging it must be 'institutionally supported' to be meaningful. The author treats human-in-the-loop as valuable when properly implemented. Passage B warns that 'requiring a nominal human sign-off may merely shift liability without changing outcomes' and argues 'the most effective accountability may come from constraining deployment and improving system performance, not from adding a perfunctory human checkpoint.' The fundamental disagreement is whether human-in-the-loop review, if institutionally supported, is a valuable safeguard (A) or whether it is typically a legal fiction that should be replaced by deployment limits and validation requirements (B). Choice (B) captures this core difference about whether human oversight can meaningfully improve automated decision-making or merely creates false assurance.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether requiring targeted disclosures to regulators and auditors is generally an appropriate mechanism for improving accountability in automated decision‑making
This is a distinguishing points of view question asking where the authors would most likely disagree. Passage A supports algorithmic transparency, specifically endorsing 'tiered transparency' with targeted disclosures to regulators and auditors as an appropriate mechanism for improving accountability. The author sees transparency as valuable when balanced with confidentiality concerns. Passage B, however, argues that governance should 'prioritize outcomes and institutional incentives rather than explanations' and warns that 'emphasizing explanations can divert attention toward easily describable features while leaving structural causes untouched.' Choice (A) captures this core disagreement: Passage A views targeted disclosures as generally appropriate, while Passage B sees transparency as potentially counterproductive compared to outcome-focused approaches. Choice (C) is tempting because both passages acknowledge disclosure risks like gaming, but this represents shared understanding rather than disagreement. Track each author's fundamental stance on transparency's role before comparing their commitments.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether a CBDC is primarily a technical project whose risks can be managed through design features such as holding caps and data-access constraints
This distinguishing points of view question requires identifying the core disagreement about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Passage A presents CBDCs as primarily a technical challenge, noting various design tradeoffs but ultimately suggesting these can be managed through 'limited-scale pilots and design features such as holding caps, tiered identity verification, and clear legal constraints on data access.' The author treats CBDC risks as manageable through careful design. Passage B argues that 'the more consequential question is institutional: what role should the state play in everyday retail finance?' and sees CBDCs as representing 'a structural shift in the political economy of finance' rather than merely technical concerns. The fundamental disagreement is whether CBDCs are primarily technical projects with manageable risks (A) or represent broader institutional shifts that may be inherently problematic (B). Choice (B) captures this core difference about how to conceptualize CBDC challenges. Track whether each author sees this as fundamentally a design problem or a structural governance issue.
- The author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would most likely disagree about
Answer: whether the default policy stance should be skepticism toward licensing unless proponents can show occupation-specific necessity
This distinguishing points of view question asks about the core disagreement between two approaches to occupational licensing policy. Passage A presents a qualified defense, arguing that licensing can be justified when properly calibrated to potential harm and when less restrictive alternatives are inadequate. The author suggests the central question is how to design rules that balance consumer protection against competition. Passage B takes a much more skeptical stance, arguing that the burden of proof should fall on licensing proponents to demonstrate concrete, occupation-specific risks that market mechanisms cannot address. The fundamental disagreement is about the default policy position: should we start from skepticism toward licensing (Passage B) or from a more neutral balancing approach (Passage A)? Choice (A) is tempting since both acknowledge licensing might sometimes be justified for high-harm occupations, but this represents convergence rather than the core philosophical disagreement about presumptions.
