Urban planners conducting a decade-long evaluation of civic transit initiatives found that every city with a fully subsidized public rail system experienced a notable decline in average commute times over the last ten years. Furthermore, the evaluation documented that all cities experiencing a notable decline in average commute times also reported a significant increase in local retail growth.
Based on the information provided, is the following statement strongly supported?
'Any city that reported a significant increase in local retail growth over the last ten years must have a fully subsidized public rail system.'
Answer: Answer
Answer
False (The statement is not strongly supported because it illegally reverses the conditional logic).
The correct evaluation is False. The passage sets up a direct chain: Subsidized Rail -> Commute Decline -> Retail Growth. The statement given for evaluation claims that Retail Growth -> Subsidized Rail. This is a classic Mistaken Reversal. While the premises guarantee that cities with subsidized rail will see retail growth, they completely fail to rule out other potential causes for retail growth in cities that do not have a subsidized rail system.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Mistaken Reversal in Conditional Logic