Something must be done to ease traffic congestion. In traditional

Answer seems to be E, for me.

Something must be done to ease traffic congestion.
(1)In traditional small towns, people used to work and shop in the same town in which they lived, but
(2)now that stores and workplaces are located far away from residential areas, people cannot avoid travelling long distances each day.
(Hence)3)Traffic congestion is so heavy on all roads that, even on major highways, the maximum speed averages only 35 miles per hour.

Which one of the following proposals is most supported by the statements above?
(E) New businesses should be encouraged to locate closer to where their workers would live.
>>This seems to answer the problem mentioned in point(2).

Traffic congestion = traffic jam.

Pretend you're driving in a traffic jam. You wish you could go faster, because it's taking FOREVER to get where you're going.

A-->Would it solve the problem if suddenly all the street signs said 70mph instead of 55mph?

Of course not, because you're stuck in traffic! You can only go as fast as the car in front of you.

D-->Would it solve the problem if a cop pulled you over and gave you a ticket for going under 55mph?

Of course not. You say to the cop, "How am I supposed to go 55mph in the midst of a traffic jam? The car in front of me is only creeping forward at 10mph!"

The only thing that's going to fix the problem and let you go faster is if we have more lanes or fewer cars on the road.

(E) is a step towards getting fewer cars on the road. And it reinforces the info we got about what contributed to creating this traffic problem: people used to work and shop locally and now they have to drive farther distances to get to those same destinations.

(B) this would just move the traffic congestion problem from highways to secondary roads.

(C) having MORE people in the suburbs would only ADD cars into the local traffic mix, thereby worsening the problem
_________________

generis ammuseeru nightblade354 pikolo2510 GMATNinja

I have a query regarding (C)



Argument understanding:
Author is concerned over build up of high traffic because of far-off location
of stores and workplaces from where people live.
Also he supports his concern by saying that the average speed is on lower side
ie 35 mph.


Sort of an inference question, but I need to find most effective solution for heavy traffic and
assist in solving author's concern.


I rejected this choice since I also need to know what is happening to already existent group of people
who are already facing a tough time traveling back and forth between work and home.


Perfect !! If new businesses are encouraged to be developed closer to where people live, all
people may have to travel less.
_________________

I think a much better reasoning to eliminate C would be to think of it this way

More people in suburbs --> more cars in suburbs --> More traffic in suburbs --> This proposal would worsen the existing situation

We want to find a option that tells us a solution. C aggravates the problem whereas E provides a solution for the problem

Hope this helps
_________________

I eliminated B,C,D and then by the process of negation E stands by itself.


E CORRECT ANSWER

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________