Loading...
A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and is considering a plan that would reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians. The intent is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in.
Which of the following would, if true, most strongly support the prediction that the plan would achieve its goal?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and is considering a plan that would reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians. |
|
| The intent is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in. |
|
The argument starts by describing a specific urban planning proposal (reducing car lanes, increasing bike/pedestrian lanes) and then explains the goal behind this plan (attracting more people downtown by improving accessibility and experience).
The city believes that reducing car lanes and increasing bike/pedestrian lanes will attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses.
This is a predictive argument that assumes changing the transportation infrastructure (fewer car lanes, more bike/pedestrian space) will lead to a specific outcome (increased foot traffic downtown). The link depends on the assumption that easier access and a more pleasant environment will draw more people to the area.
Strengthen - We need to find information that would increase our belief that reducing car lanes and adding bike/pedestrian lanes will actually attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses.
The key claim is about causation - that changing the lane configuration will lead to more people coming downtown. We need to focus on the specific mechanism: making downtown 'easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in' for the target groups (workers and shoppers).
Since this is a strengthen question, we want to find new information that makes the conclusion more likely to be true. The argument assumes that reducing car lanes and adding bike/pedestrian infrastructure will make downtown more accessible and pleasant, leading to more visitors. We should look for evidence that supports this causal chain - either showing that similar plans work elsewhere, that the target audience (workers/shoppers) actually prefer bike/pedestrian access, or that current car traffic is actually a barrier to downtown visits.
'People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so.' While this tells us that walking and biking are good for health, it doesn't strengthen the argument that creating more bike and pedestrian lanes will attract more workers and shoppers downtown. The health benefits alone don't necessarily translate to increased downtown foot traffic or business activity. This choice focuses on personal health outcomes rather than the economic goal of attracting people to downtown businesses.
'Most people who prefer to shop at suburban malls instead of downtown urban areas do so because parking is easier and cheaper at the former.' This actually weakens rather than strengthens the argument. If people avoid downtown because of parking difficulties, then reducing car lanes (which likely means reducing parking accessibility) would make the problem worse, not better. This suggests the plan might drive people further away from downtown rather than attracting them.
'In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.' This strongly supports the prediction because it provides direct evidence that similar plans have succeeded in comparable situations. When other moderately sized cities implemented measures to improve pedestrian and cyclist access, their downtown businesses flourished. This creates a strong precedent suggesting the proposed plan will likely achieve its goal of attracting more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses.
'If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.' This is somewhat circular reasoning. It essentially restates the conclusion (that the plan will attract more people) rather than providing independent evidence to support it. The statement assumes the plan will work if enforced properly, but doesn't give us reasons why we should believe this assumption is valid.
'Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.' This actually works against the argument. If recreational cyclists live far from downtown, they're less likely to use the new bike lanes for commuting to work or shopping downtown. This suggests that the target audience for the bike infrastructure might not be in a position to take advantage of it, which would undermine the plan's effectiveness.