Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardResolve the Paradox

The municipality of Veridia recently implemented a strict "telecommuting mandate" for all city government employees, allowing them to work from home full-time. The explicit goal of the policy was to reduce rush-hour traffic congestion in the downtown civic center. Traffic monitors indicate, however, that during the first year of the mandate, the total number of cars entering the downtown civic center during rush hour actually increased by 15 percent, even though the city government is the largest employer in Veridia and 90 percent of its employees complied with the mandate. Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy in the traffic data?

  1. The significant reduction in initial traffic volume resulting from the mandate eliminated chronic historical gridlock, which incentivized thousands of private-sector workers who previously used mass transit to begin driving their personal cars to the civic center.Answer
  2. B
    Prior to the telecommuting mandate, the vast majority of city government employees commuted to the civic center using a heavily subsidized municipal light rail system rather than personal vehicles.
  3. C
    In conjunction with the telecommuting mandate, the municipality of Veridia permanently closed two major multi-lane arterial bridges that previously served as the primary driving routes into the downtown civic center.
  4. D
    The automated traffic monitors installed to measure the influx of vehicles are known to suffer from calibration errors during severe weather events, occasionally overcounting the total number of vehicles on the road.
  5. E
    Any municipality that implements a large-scale telecommuting mandate will inevitably experience unforeseeable negative economic consequences that completely outweigh the intended environmental benefits of the policy.

Answer

The statement explaining that the elimination of gridlock incentivized private-sector workers to abandon mass transit and start driving.
The correct answer successfully reconciles the two seemingly contradictory facts by introducing a secondary consequence of the initial action. It accepts that the government workers stayed home (Fact 1), which initially reduced traffic. It then explains that this very reduction in traffic acted as a catalyst for a different, larger group (private-sector workers) to change their habits from using mass transit to driving. This influx of new drivers perfectly explains how the total number of cars could increase by 15 percent (Fact 2) despite the city's largest employer removing its workers from the roads. Both premises can logically coexist.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the first premise (Fact 1).
The city government (the largest employer) allowed its workers to telecommute, and 90% complied, removing a massive number of commuters from the roads.
Understanding the baseline action that was expected to reduce traffic.
2
Identify the second premise (Fact 2) and the resulting paradox.
Rush-hour traffic entering the civic center actually increased by 15%. The paradox is that removing the largest group of commuters led to an overall increase in cars.
Clearly defining the contradiction is necessary before evaluating the answer choices.
3
Determine the criteria for the correct answer.
The correct answer must accept both facts as true and provide a new piece of information that explains where a massive influx of new cars came from as a direct or indirect result of the mandate.
A valid resolution bridges both premises without denying either.
4
Evaluate the options against the criteria.
The option involving private-sector workers switching from mass transit to driving perfectly explains the mechanism: the roads cleared up just enough to attract an even larger group of drivers who previously found driving too congested.
This introduces a 'compensatory mechanism' (induced demand) that fully reconciles both sides of the stimulus.

Key Concept

Identifying compensatory mechanisms (induced demand) that reconcile two seemingly contradictory factual trends.
Rate this question

Topics

Resolve the Paradox

More questions from this topic