A study examining ninety large cities found that in those with more kilometers of bicycle paths and roadway bicycle lanes...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

A study examining ninety large cities found that in those with more kilometers of bicycle paths and roadway bicycle lanes per capita, higher percentages of the population commute to work by bicycle. For this reason the study concluded that adding bicycle paths and lanes is an effective way to encourage commuters to bicycle rather than drive.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the reasoning in the study?

The higher the percentage of a city's population commutes by bicycle, the stronger political pressure there is for the city to add bicycle paths and lanes.

A large percentage of urban bicycle commuters commute via roadway bicycle lanes but use bicycle paths mainly for recreation.

Even in communities with extensive bicycle paths and roadway bicycle lanes, many commuters drive rather than bicycle to work because of the perceived danger of bicycling in traffic.

On average, cities with climates more pleasant for bicycling have fewer kilometers of bicycle lanes and paths per capita than those with harsher climates.

City residents are unlikely to commute along bicycle paths or lanes that do not provide direct, efficient routes between their homes and their workplaces.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
A study examining ninety large cities found that in those with more kilometers of bicycle paths and roadway bicycle lanes per capita, higher percentages of the population commute to work by bicycle.	What it says: Cities with more bike paths per person have more bike commuters What it does: Presents the main finding that establishes a connection between bike infrastructure and bike usage What it is: Study finding Visualization: City A: 5 km bike paths per 1000 people → 15% bike commuters City B: 2 km bike paths per 1000 people → 8% bike commuters
For this reason the study concluded that adding bicycle paths and lanes is an effective way to encourage commuters to bicycle rather than drive.	What it says: Building more bike paths will make people choose biking over driving What it does: Uses the previous finding to make a causal claim about how to change commuter behavior What it is: Author's conclusion Visualization: Current state: Few bike paths → Few bike commuters Solution: Add bike paths → More people switch from cars to bikes

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with a study finding that shows a relationship between bike infrastructure and bike usage, then jumps from this correlation to a conclusion about causation and effectiveness

Main Conclusion:

Adding bicycle paths and lanes is an effective way to encourage commuters to bicycle rather than drive

Logical Structure:

The study uses correlation evidence (more bike paths = more bike commuters) to support a causal conclusion (building bike paths will cause people to switch from driving to biking). This is a classic correlation-to-causation logical structure that assumes the relationship works in the direction the study claims

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that adding bike paths is an effective way to encourage commuters to switch from cars to bikes

Precision of Claims

The study makes a causal claim about effectiveness - specifically that adding bike infrastructure will encourage commuters to bicycle 'rather than drive', meaning people will switch from cars to bikes

Strategy

Look for scenarios that break the causal link between adding bike paths and getting people to switch from cars to bikes. We need to accept the study's finding (more paths = more bike commuters) but question whether building paths actually causes the behavioral change the conclusion claims

Answer Choices Explained

The higher the percentage of a city's population commutes by bicycle, the stronger political pressure there is for the city to add bicycle paths and lanes.

This suggests reverse causation - that cities build bike paths in response to high bicycle ridership, not the other way around. If true, this means the correlation the study found (more paths = more cyclists) doesn't prove that building paths will create new cyclists. Instead, it shows that existing cyclists create political pressure for infrastructure. This directly weakens the conclusion that adding paths is an effective way to encourage people to switch from cars to bikes, because it suggests the paths are built where cyclists already exist rather than creating new cyclists.

A large percentage of urban bicycle commuters commute via roadway bicycle lanes but use bicycle paths mainly for recreation.

This tells us how cyclists use different types of infrastructure but doesn't challenge whether building more infrastructure encourages people to switch from driving to biking. The study's conclusion is about encouraging commuters to bicycle rather than drive, and this choice actually supports that bike lanes are used for commuting. It doesn't weaken the causal relationship the study claims.

Even in communities with extensive bicycle paths and roadway bicycle lanes, many commuters drive rather than bicycle to work because of the perceived danger of bicycling in traffic.

This doesn't weaken the study's reasoning because it explains why some people still drive even with bike infrastructure available, but it doesn't challenge whether bike infrastructure encourages some people to switch from cars to bikes. The study's conclusion can still be valid even if it doesn't work for everyone - the claim is that adding paths is effective, not that it converts all drivers.

On average, cities with climates more pleasant for bicycling have fewer kilometers of bicycle lanes and paths per capita than those with harsher climates.

This gives us information about climate patterns and infrastructure but doesn't directly address whether building bike paths encourages people to switch from driving to biking. It might suggest other factors influence cycling rates, but it doesn't break the causal link the study claims between infrastructure and increased cycling.

City residents are unlikely to commute along bicycle paths or lanes that do not provide direct, efficient routes between their homes and their workplaces.

This tells us that bike infrastructure needs to be well-designed to be useful, but it doesn't weaken the conclusion that adding paths and lanes is effective. If anything, it supports the idea that good bike infrastructure does encourage cycling - it just adds the condition that the infrastructure needs to be practical and direct.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...