Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumIdentifying Main Conclusions and Final Claims

Many urban transit advocates argue that expanding municipal light rail networks inevitably reduces highway traffic congestion by drawing drivers off major roadways. However, recent mobility studies demonstrate that new rail lines often induce outer-suburban residential development, ultimately generating additional automobile trips onto regional highways. Although light rail projects unquestionably provide essential mobility options for residents who lack personal vehicles, the core premise that such systems alleviate highway gridlock is demonstrably false. Therefore, municipal transportation authorities should not approve funding for light rail expansions when the sole justification provided is congestion reduction.

Which of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the argument above?

  1. A
    The primary claim that expanding light rail networks relieves regional traffic gridlock is based on flawed assumptions.
  2. B
    Expanding municipal light rail systems fails to provide meaningful transportation benefits to low-income urban residents.
  3. C
    New municipal light rail capacity encourages suburban sprawl that creates additional highway commuters.
  4. Municipal transit boards should refuse to finance light rail expansion projects if traffic congestion relief is the only rationale offered.Answer
  5. E
    Public transit funding should be redirected entirely from light rail developments toward widening existing highway corridors.

Answer

Municipal transit boards should refuse to finance light rail expansion projects if traffic congestion relief is the only rationale offered.
The correct option accurately restates the author's main conclusion, introduced by the signal word 'therefore' in the final sentence: municipal authorities should not approve light rail expansions when congestion relief is the sole justification.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structural role of each statement in the passage.
Identify background context, opposing viewpoints, counter-evidence, concessions, and lead-in signal words.
Main conclusions in GMAT Critical Reasoning arguments are supported by premises and intermediate claims, often signalled by conclusion indicators such as 'therefore'.
2
Distinguish intermediate claims from the ultimate recommendation.
The statement that the core premise of gridlock alleviation is false serves as a intermediate conclusion justifying the final policy recommendation.
Sub-conclusions provide logical steps toward the final claim rather than standing as the ultimate takeaway.
3
Match the ultimate recommendation to the correct paraphrase.
The final sentence argues against funding light rail expansions solely for congestion relief, matching the correct choice.
The correct answer must encompass the author's primary final assertion without overstepping the scope.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Conclusions and Final Claims
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Main Conclusions and Final Claims

More questions from this topic