Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStrengthen

Urban Planner: Last year, the city of Greenfield introduced a subsidized bicycle-sharing program in its downtown core to reduce rush-hour automobile congestion. Despite high enrollment in the program, traffic sensor data indicated that downtown automobile volume during peak hours did not decrease. Several city council members concluded that the bicycle-sharing program had no effect on reducing car trips. However, their conclusion overlooks the fact that during the same year, a major regional bridge closure diverted thousands of commuter vehicles into Greenfield's downtown streets that would have otherwise bypassed the city.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the urban planner's argument?

  1. A
    Automobile traffic congestion during weekend non-peak hours, when no diverted bridge traffic entered the downtown core, also failed to decline after the bicycle-sharing program was introduced.
  2. B
    The automated traffic sensors installed along Greenfield's downtown corridors counted only passenger cars and did not record commercial delivery trucks.
  3. A municipal survey conducted during the program found that a substantial majority of regular bicycle-share users had previously driven personal automobiles for their daily downtown commutes.Answer
  4. D
    Every resident in Greenfield who owns an automobile prefers driving over bicycling whenever weather conditions are unfavorable.
  5. E
    Neighboring cities of similar size that implemented bicycle-sharing programs reported that bicycle maintenance and fleet rebalancing costs increased significantly after the first year.

Answer

A municipal survey conducted during the program found that a substantial majority of regular bicycle-share users had previously driven personal automobiles for their daily downtown commutes.
The urban planner contends that the bicycle-sharing program did reduce car trips, but that the reduction was obscured by thousands of vehicles diverted into downtown due to a bridge closure. The correct answer provides direct empirical evidence that the program converted previous automobile drivers into bicycle commuters. Establishing that mode substitution occurred directly validates the planner's claim that the program reduced car trips, confirming that the lack of net traffic reduction was attributable to the offsetting diverted traffic.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion and premises of the urban planner's argument.
The planner argues that the council members are wrong to conclude the bike-share program failed to reduce car trips, citing the bridge closure as an external factor that added traffic and masked the program's true impact.
Understanding the precise argumentative gap is necessary to identify evidence that bolsters the planner's position against the council members.
2
Analyze the underlying assumption bridging the evidence and the conclusion.
The planner assumes that the bicycle-sharing program actually caused former drivers to switch modes of transportation, and that this reduction was masked by the influx of diverted bridge traffic.
To strengthen the claim that the program was effective despite flat overall traffic numbers, we must provide evidence that bicycle trips directly displaced prior car trips.
3
Evaluate the answer choices to identify the statement that directly substantiates this assumption.
Confirming that regular bicycle-share users previously commuted by car proves mode substitution occurred, verifying that car trips were indeed eliminated by the program.
This rules out the possibility that the bicycle-share program was used only by people who previously walked or took transit, thereby confirming the planner's hypothesis.

Key Concept

Strengthening causal arguments by providing direct evidence that the intended mechanism occurred while an external confounding factor masked the aggregate statistical outcome.
Rate this question

Topics

Strengthen

More questions from this topic