This question tests SSAT Upper Level reading skills: identifying evidence that supports a conclusion. The key concept is understanding how specific pieces of evidence can directly support or refute a conclusion based on logical reasoning. This involves critical reading and analytical skills to discern relevant from irrelevant information. In the passage, the argument that minimum-wage increases did not reduce employment is justified by data showing employment in affected counties changed +0.2% versus +0.1% in matched controls, which illustrates no negative impact. Choice A is correct because it directly compares employment changes between treatment and control groups, demonstrating that employment actually increased slightly more in areas with wage increases, using official data (BLS, 2021). Choice B is incorrect because it presents one owner's subjective feeling about hiring difficulty without payroll records or comparative data, leading to a common misconception where students might overvalue anecdotal business owner testimony. To help students, teach them to identify key phrases that signal controlled comparisons, such as 'matched controls' and percentage changes. Encourage practice with recognizing the importance of comparison groups in economic studies. Watch for: reliance on individual anecdotes, general statements about wages and morale without employment data, and outdated case studies from different economic contexts.

This question tests SSAT Upper Level reading skills: identifying evidence that supports a conclusion. The key concept is understanding how specific pieces of evidence can directly support or refute a conclusion based on logical reasoning. This involves critical reading and analytical skills to discern relevant from irrelevant information. In the passage, the thesis that tutoring programs narrow math achievement gaps is corroborated by data showing participants gained 0.28 SD versus 0.07 SD for nonparticipants, which illustrates a substantial differential improvement. Choice A is correct because it directly compares learning gains between program participants and nonparticipants using standard deviation measures, providing quantitative evidence from a credible source (DOE, 2022). Choice B is incorrect because it focuses on tutor enthusiasm rather than student outcomes, leading to a common misconception where students might confuse program engagement with measurable achievement. To help students, teach them to identify key phrases that signal comparative gains, such as standard deviation differences and participant versus nonparticipant comparisons. Encourage practice with understanding effect sizes and achievement gap metrics. Watch for: confusion between tutor experiences and student outcomes, concurrent changes not specific to math gaps, and vague generalizations without quantified evidence.