Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorMethod of Reasoning

Consider the following argument by an urban transportation economist:

"Municipal planners frequently argue that constructing additional highway lanes will sustainably resolve metropolitan traffic congestion by increasing vehicular throughput capacity. However, this intervention is self-defeating. Adding highway lanes initially reduces the effective travel-time cost of driving along the corridor. Because commuters respond rationally to reduced marginal transit costs, this reduction activates latent travel demand, inducing commuters who previously utilized regional rail or traveled during off-peak hours to shift to peak-period driving. Consequently, the volume of peak-hour vehicular traffic increases until the newly added lane capacity is entirely saturated, returning transit times to their prior equilibrium. Thus, expanding highway lane capacity cannot produce lasting reductions in metropolitan roadway congestion."

Arrange the following statements in the correct logical sequence that reflects the step-by-step structural progression of the economist's refutation, starting from the targeted position to the ultimate conclusion:

  1. 1Stating the initial policy thesis that increasing highway lane capacity provides a lasting remedy for commuter congestion.
  2. 2Identifying the direct, short-term consequence of expanded capacity, specifically the reduction of marginal travel-time costs.
  3. 3Explaining the behavioral mechanism whereby lower travel costs induce transit switching and activate latent vehicular demand.
  4. 4Deducing the intermediate outcome that increased commuter volume saturates new capacity and restores original travel-time delays.
  5. 5Deriving the main conclusion that expanding roadway infrastructure is inherently ineffective at achieving enduring congestion relief.

Cevap

The correct logical progression begins with stating the targeted policy thesis, followed by the immediate reduction in travel-time costs, the behavioral activation of latent demand, the saturation of capacity back to equilibrium, and concluding with the refutation of the expansion policy.
The argument operates via a structured causal refutation. It begins by introducing the planners' hypothesis (target thesis), establishes the initial consequence of the policy (marginal cost reduction), outlines the behavioral response (induced demand), derives the systemic intermediate result (saturation returning to equilibrium), and ends with the definitive refutation of the opening thesis (main conclusion).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the target claim being challenged.
The argument opens by characterizing the municipal planners' view that lane expansion sustainably solves congestion.
In refutation arguments, establishing the opposing thesis is the necessary first step before presenting counter-evidence.
2
Identify the immediate causal premise.
The economist notes that lane expansion decreases short-term travel times.
This sets up the initial condition that triggers subsequent behavioral shifts.
3
Trace the intermediate behavioral mechanism.
Lower travel costs induce mode and schedule shifting, activating latent road demand.
This demonstrates how commuter decision-making responds to the initial condition.
4
Identify the intermediate systemic conclusion.
The influx of induced drivers fills the new capacity until travel delays return to prior equilibrium.
This serves as an intermediate lemma connecting the behavioral response to the nullification of the initial benefit.
5
Isolate the main conclusion.
Expanding roadway capacity fails to produce lasting congestion relief.
The final inferential takeaway directly negates the target claim introduced at the start.

Anahtar Kavram

Logical progression of causal refutations and intermediate lemma structures
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Method of Reasoning

Bu konudan daha fazla soru