TOEFL iBT 2026 Write for an Academic Discussion: uma questão de prática real

This week we examined universal basic services (UBS) — free public transit, childcare, and broadband — as alternatives to cash transfers. Advocates argue that UBS reduces inequality and builds social solidarity; critics contend that it is regressive because the middle class captures most of the benefit. For our discussion, consider a mid-sized city with a limited budget. Should it prioritize UBS expansion or targeted cash assistance for its poorest residents? Defend your position with reasoning, and respond to at least one classmate's point.

Targeted cash transfers are clearly superior. A city with a fixed budget should direct every dollar to those below the poverty line. UBS spreads spending thinly across the entire population, so the poorest receive a smaller share. Cash also respects autonomy — recipients know their own needs better than any bureaucrat. If the goal is poverty reduction, targeting is simply more efficient.

I disagree. Targeted programs often stigmatize recipients and create bureaucratic hurdles that exclude the very people they aim to help. Universal services, by contrast, reach everyone without means-testing, and they build broad political coalitions that sustain funding over time. A free bus pass benefits a low-wage worker just as much as a wealthy commuter, but the wealthy commuter will fight to keep the bus running. That political durability is worth the inefficiency.