If central business districts were restricted to commercial : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 07 Dec 2016, 11:20

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# If central business districts were restricted to commercial

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Status:
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Posts: 5
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-18-2013
GPA: 3.11
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:12
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (02:12) correct 46% (01:13) wrong based on 485 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

If central business districts were restricted to commercial traffic, which includes taxis and buses, most personal cars would not enter urban centers. Such a reduction in traffic would reduce the risk of congestion and collisions in central business districts.

The conclusion drawn in the first sentence depends on which of the following assumptions?

A.Roads and parking facilities outside urban centers are as convenient as those in central business districts for personal cars.
B.Most roads and parking facilities outside urban centers are not designed to handle commercial traffic.
C.Most personal cars are not used for commercial purposes.
D.Personal cars are more likely to cause congestion or be involved in collisions than commercial traffic.
E.A reduction in personal cars in central business districts would lead eventually to increases in commercial traffic.

My doubt: How do we identify the conclusion here? Since it is already mentioned that the conclusion is the "first sentence",I could get the question right. But otherwise I feel the conclusion is the second sentence.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Posts: 44
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 97 [1] , given: 3

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:24
1
KUDOS
Yes you are correct the main conclusion is the second sentence. Conclusion is normally provided in the end after all reasoning however what you are missing is that there can be multiple conclusion in one argument and one conclusion can be used to support the main conclusion of the passage.

This is what is happening in the passage above.
Hope this helps
_________________

Intern
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 19
Location: Azerbaijan
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 39

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:29
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
We should find an assumption which follows to the fact that personal cars will not enter central districts in the case if there is a ban for commercial ones (1st sentence's conclusion). The only assumption underlying the connection between personal cars and commercial cars is C.
A,B - any infrastructure can not affect relation between personal / commercial
D,E - congestion is discussed in the 2nd premise and has nothing to do with the 1st one.
Intern
Status:
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Posts: 5
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-18-2013
GPA: 3.11
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:32
We should find an assumption which follows to the fact that personal cars will not enter central districts in the case if there is a ban for commercial ones (1st sentence's conclusion). The only assumption underlying the connection between personal cars and commercial cars is C.
A,B - any infrastructure can not affect relation between personal / commercial
D,E - congestion is discussed in the 2nd premise and has nothing to do with the 1st one.

Agreed. But if we consider the second statement to be the conclusion, then wont D be a contender?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 346
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 191

Kudos [?]: 358 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:41
Hi - To me this comes into the category of 'not worth worrying about' - a massive key thing on GMAT is just focussing on the Question.

It explicitly says the first sentence is the conclusion you should be looking for - so look for it there!

Don't distract yourself.

James
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Intern
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 19
Location: Azerbaijan
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 39

### Show Tags

09 May 2013, 09:53
unstoppable wrote:
...
Agreed. But if we consider the second statement to be the conclusion, then wont D be a contender?

When I assume that the whole 1st sentence is evidence (the downtown is banned for commercial vehicles & personal cars don't enter the urban centers) and 2nd sentence is conclusion (reduced traffic leads to the decrease of congestions/collusions in the downtown) then my logic is:
personal cars do the most congestions/collusions (D assumption) - > but the commercial cars (not personal ones) are banned - > no definite impact on the situation in the urban districts
Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 71
Location: United States
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 23

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2013, 04:42
plumber250 wrote:
Hi - To me this comes into the category of 'not worth worrying about' - a massive key thing on GMAT is just focussing on the Question.

It explicitly says the first sentence is the conclusion you should be looking for - so look for it there!

Don't distract yourself.

James

James, would you please explain why D can not be the answer here?
_________________

Struggling: make or break attempt

Current Student
Joined: 13 May 2011
Posts: 199
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.2
WE: Accounting (Consulting)
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 93

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2013, 02:37
SaraLotfy wrote:
plumber250 wrote:
Hi - To me this comes into the category of 'not worth worrying about' - a massive key thing on GMAT is just focussing on the Question.

It explicitly says the first sentence is the conclusion you should be looking for - so look for it there!

Don't distract yourself.

James

James, would you please explain why D can not be the answer here?

Action:Restrict central business districts to commercial traffic.

Conclusion: most personal cars would not enter urban centers.

To reach this conclusion we are missing the link that will explain why traffic restriction will lead to most personal card not entering urban centers.

First, identify the Question: restrict traffic to commercial + ???? = most personal cars would not enter.

'C' gives the answer > Most personal cars aren't used for commercial purposes, hence traffic restriction directly affects decrease in personal cars entering the area.

most personal cars would not enter + ???? = increase in commercial traffic.

As you can see, this answer not only doesn't provide any assumption as required by the original question, but also misses an assumption itself. Why would decrease in personal cars to the area lead to an increase in commercial traffic? there's a link missing.
_________________

Stay positive! ^.^

My blog - http://www.mbafortech.com

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 2035
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 770 Q0 V
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 582 [0], given: 355

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2014, 18:04
Same here. James can you explain why D is not correct answer choice?

Thanks
Cheers
J
Intern
Joined: 22 Dec 2013
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 98

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2014, 02:09
+1 for D....
Intern
Joined: 24 Jan 2013
Posts: 40
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2014, 05:15
We need to remember that Assumption answers must provide new information.
In this question te conclusion is that the Ban in personal cars will reduce traffic.
So the author assumes that no personal cars are used for commercial purposes..
If they are the conclusion falls apart,I.e. The ban will not reduce traffic (The negation technique can be applied)

The option which says the most cars cause accidents and congestion is not an assumption but an inference or precisely a must be true ..this information is inferrable from the passage,and it does not provide new Information

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2014
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2015, 03:46
First sentence: "If central business districts were restricted to commercial traffic, which includes taxis and buses, most personal cars would not enter urban centers"
- There is a clear assumption here. That is, personal cars do not belong to commercial traffic type. So, a limit use to only commercial traffic will exclude the appearance of personal cars. Answer C (as the official fits very well).

Second sentence, also the conclusion: "Such a reduction in traffic would reduce the risk of congestion and collisions in central business districts"
- "Such a reduction in traffic" equally means that "such a reduction in the appearance of personal cars". and this will reduce the risk of congestion and collisions. Problems appear: why does the reduction of personal cars help to reduce the risk of congestion and collisions in central business districts?

- Doubtless there are two assumptions:
1) Personal cars must have contributed to the increasing risk congestion and collisions in central business districts, and a reduction in personal cars will reduce such risk.
- However, logically, we have the pattern: A causes B. Then, Not A DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean Not B.
- Therefore, the reduction in personal cars does not guarantee that the risk of congestion and collisions is reduced UNLESS it rests upon the second assumptions:

2) Between commercial traffic and personal cars, the former will cause less (or even no) risk of congestion and collision THAN personal cars. At that time, when there is much less appearance of personal cars and mostly the appearance of commercial traffic, the risk of congestion and collision WILL BE reduced.
- Such assumption is equally to: "Personal cars are more likely to cause congestion or be involved in collisions than commercial traffic." It is answer D.

I believe I just use the words and answers from the questions to deal with the understanding. So I strongly think that I put no more common sense or "real world" factors which others often claim as the flaw in student's reasoning. With such reasoning, I suggest that this is not a good question.

Answer C indeed helps us to strengthen the conclusion tremendously because the lack of it will make the claim meaningless outright. HOWEVER, even if C true, can the conclusion hold without D? Absolutely NOT! (as my reasoning above)

Assumption is a decisive factor that if it is not there, the conclusion cannot hold, C and D should be both important. One CANNOT say that assumption C appears before assumption D and assumption C bears a heavy weight of an assumption. That would be a ridiculous thing to say because such claim indeed is based on the flow of one's own thinking, whereas we are dealing with the meaning of the possible assumptions themselves in the already claimed conclusion.

unstoppable wrote:
If central business districts were restricted to commercial traffic, which includes taxis and buses, most personal cars would not enter urban centers. Such a reduction in traffic would reduce the risk of congestion and collisions in central business districts.

The conclusion drawn in the first sentence depends on which of the following assumptions?

A.Roads and parking facilities outside urban centers are as convenient as those in central business districts for personal cars.
B.Most roads and parking facilities outside urban centers are not designed to handle commercial traffic.
C.Most personal cars are not used for commercial purposes.
D.Personal cars are more likely to cause congestion or be involved in collisions than commercial traffic.
E.A reduction in personal cars in central business districts would lead eventually to increases in commercial traffic.

My doubt: How do we identify the conclusion here? Since it is already mentioned that the conclusion is the "first sentence",I could get the question right. But otherwise I feel the conclusion is the second sentence.
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2015
Posts: 74
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 273

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2016, 18:35
there are two conclusions here

If central business districts were restricted to commercial traffic, which includes taxis and buses,(PREMISES)

ASSUMPTION- personal cars are not in the category of commercial traffic ( negate it and the conclusion at below will break

[b]CONCLUSION (1)[/b] most personal cars would not enter urban centers.

ASSUMPTION 2- D.Personal cars are more likely to cause congestion or be involved in collisions than commercial traffic.

MAIN CONCLUSION- Such a reduction in traffic would reduce the risk of congestion and collisions in central business districts.

As James has pointed out correctly, we need to read carefully what has been asked, it is the conclusion in the first line

The conclusion drawn in the first sentence depends on which of the following assumptions?
Re: If central business districts were restricted to commercial   [#permalink] 16 Sep 2016, 18:35
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Downtown Villieu was once a flourishing business district, but most 5 25 Jan 2015, 20:56
5 Downtown Villieu was once a flourishing business district 4 07 Jul 2013, 00:49
2 If the airspace around centrally located airport were 4 13 Feb 2013, 19:37
6 If the airspace around centrally located airports were 10 09 May 2011, 10:46
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 10 Mar 2013, 13:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by