Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 2...

Read the passage and mark the letter A, B, C or D on your answer sheet to indicate the best answer to each of the following questions from 27 to 34.

        For decades, universal basic income sat as an obscure notion in policy backrooms; now it permeates mainstream debate. The proposal – typically a no-strings monthly cash grant to everyone – has been revived by automation anxieties, widening inequality, and the Covid-19 income shock. US campaigners from Andrew Yang to Occupy helped popularize it, yet true universality remains rare: many “UBI” pilots are means-tested or limited. Researchers stress that “universal,” “basic,” and “income” are not slogans but precise criteria, distinguishing unconditional cash from today’s contingent benefits.

        Supporters coalesce for different reasons. One camp wants stronger protection for the most disadvantaged as wages stagnate and living costs climb. Another decries the patchwork safety net: fragmented rules that stigmatize recipients and create perceived work disincentives. A universal, unconditional grant could reduce gatekeeping and shame, but it also directs vast sums to people who are not poor. The strategic dilemma is whether UBI should supplement existing programs or replace them – trade-offs that carry profound distributional and political consequences.

        Evidence from Alaska’s dividend and the Eastern Cherokee payments shows modest, universal transfers do not trigger vice sprees and barely dent labor supply; households spend like they do with other income – on rent, transport, food, clothing. Still, scale is daunting: A UBI set at $1,000 per month per person would dwarf today’s entire safety-net budget. Suggested funding – carbon levies, financial-sector taxes – cannot escape the arithmetic that universality is expensive, so anti-poverty yield depends on whether resources are targeted or spread thinly.

        Alternatives recur. A negative income tax phases out benefits as earnings rise; it is “UBI without universality.” Existing tools – EITC and SNAP – cut poverty substantially yet miss childless adults and impose conditions. Scholars propose expanding near-universal child credits and paying monthly, widening access while keeping targeting. City pilots like Stockton or Chicago provide unconditional cash but only to selected low-income residents, not everyone. Policymakers juggle speed versus means-testing: rapid delivery in crises can conflict with administrative checks intended to concentrate aid.

(Adapted from Knowable Magazine interview with Hilary Hoynes & Jesse Rothstein: “Universal Basic Income,” 2020)

Question 27. The word obscure in paragraph 1 is OPPOSITE in meaning to ______.

A. arcane                B. nebulous                        C. renowned                        D. esoteric