You are hired by the presidential administration to review the unemployment insurance program, which currently replaces 45% of a worker's wages for 26 weeks after she loses her job. The empirical evidence on unemployment spell durations suggests that workers who leave unemployment earlier (that is, find or take a job sooner) have no higher post-unemployment wages than workers who leave unemployment later. This result could be interpreted as evidence that the quality of the job match does not improve as the unemployment spell grows longer.

An alternative explanation for this evidence is that workers with longer unemployment spells are less qualified than workers with shorter unemployment

spells. How could you empirically distinguish between this explanation and the explanation put forth in (a)? (a) had to do with moral hazard in Unemployment Insurance