Question 1
A student argues that Reagan's 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act should be judged an unqualified success because inflation and unemployment both fell by the mid-1980s. Which counter-evidence would most effectively challenge this judgement for a Paper 3 evaluative essay?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!
IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: What the question demands
The question asks for evidence that challenges a one-sided 'unqualified success' judgement, meaning it needs a genuine cost that coexisted with the stated benefits.
Step 2: Recall the documented trade-off
The material explicitly shows that while inflation and unemployment fell, the wealth gap widened and national debt rose substantially as a direct consequence of the same tax and spending policies.
Step 3: Why this counters the claim
This shows the policy's gains came bundled with structural costs, which directly undermines any claim of an 'unqualified' success rather than a mixed outcome.
Step 4: Confirm the answer
Only the debt and inequality evidence directly rebuts the success claim using facts about the same policy period, so option A is correct.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Canada comparison is irrelevant
Mulroney's tax cuts in Canada do not address whether Reagan's specific policy succeeded or failed in the US; it's a distraction, not counter-evidence.
Step 2: Cold War ending is chronologically disconnected
The Cold War ended in 1991, years after the tax act, and does not speak to the economic trade-offs of Reaganomics itself.
Step 3: Pre-Reagan improvement claim is unsupported
The source material describes inflation as still severe (13.5%) when Reagan took office, not already improving beforehand.
Step 4: Weigh against the debt/inequality option
Only the debt and wealth gap evidence is both factually supported and directly relevant to evaluating the tax act's success.
Step 5: Confirm correct answer
Option A is the only real counter-evidence to the success claim, so it is correct.
Question 2
A historian describes Mulroney's approach to free trade with the United States as 'selective adoption of neoliberalism.' What evidence best supports this characterization?No clue? Show me the answer
Correct answerCorrect!IncorrectStep-by-step walkthrough
Choose a solution method
Method #1Direct reasoningStep 1: Meaning of 'selective adoption'
Selective adoption implies embracing some neoliberal elements while resisting others, rather than a full package transfer.
Step 2: Match to Mulroney's actual record
Mulroney embraced trade liberalization (CUSFTA 1988) but did not dismantle Canada's welfare state, keeping public healthcare intact.
Step 3: Why this fits the term
This shows he took the external, trade-focused half of neoliberalism without the domestic welfare rollback, which is exactly what 'selective' describes.
Step 4: Confirm the answer
Option A precisely reflects this documented dual approach, making it correct.
Method #2Process of eliminationStep 1: Chronology wrong for option B
Canada signed the bilateral agreement in 1988, well before NAFTA in 1994, so this timeline is incorrect.
Step 2: Healthcare privatization is false
The source states Canadian healthcare remained intact under Mulroney; there is no record of privatizing it.
Step 3: Full deregulation overstates the case
The source distinguishes Canada's more moderate conservatism from the scale of Reagan's deregulation, so 'full' adoption is inaccurate.
Step 4: Confirm against the welfare-retention evidence
Only the healthcare-retention fact matches the specific meaning of 'selective adoption' described in the material.
Step 5: Final selection
Option A is the only accurate and relevant supporting evidence.