An environmental economist argues: Some urban planners propose that constructing additional highway lanes is sufficient to eliminate city traffic congestion. However, expanding highway capacity initially reduces travel time, which quickly induces additional commuters to drive rather than use public transit. This latent demand inevitably restores traffic volume to its previous congestion level within a few years. Therefore, building more highway lanes cannot permanently eliminate traffic congestion.
Arrange the following statements in sequential order to reflect the step-by-step logical progression of the economist's argument, starting from the opposing premise and ending with the final conclusion.
- 1Stating the opposing proposal that adding highway lanes eliminates traffic congestion.
- 2Explaining that initial travel-time reductions induce transit users to shift to driving.
- 3Concluding that induced traffic demand brings congestion back to its original level.
- 4Deducing that expanding highway lanes cannot serve as a permanent solution to congestion.
Answer
The correct logical order begins with stating the opposing proposal, proceeds to the causal mechanism of induced demand, moves to the intermediate outcome of restored congestion levels, and concludes with the deduction that expanding lanes fails as a permanent solution.
The argument utilizes a direct refutational method. It opens by acknowledging the opposing view, introduces a behavioral causal premise (induced demand), establishes an intermediate finding (restoration of previous congestion), and ends with the primary conclusion that negates the opening claim.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Logical progression and structure of an argument by refutation
Estimated Time:45s