I am not perfectly sure about C as it states that correlation = causation. The conclusion seems to proof a causation. In this similar question created by MGMAT answer D is wrong because of a correlation = causation mistake.

MGMAT Q:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/officials-of ... 12027.html

GMATNinja and others, please help to explain

Cheers
Rudolf

AndrewN, I did get this question right but like a lot of people, I am still not totally convinced as to why C is better than D. Your take on this?

Hello, kntombat. I am playing catch-up after a busy day and a day-and-a-half power outage, so pardon the delay. I did not think about this one too much before I also chose (C). There are a few caution signs in the latter that you simply should not ignore, as well as some plusses to (C) that are easy to overlook.


First off, notice that the question does NOT ask us to choose the one and only answer that will lead to the success of the plan, just the one that would most strongly support the prediction.


I spend a lot of time in my CR posts breaking down the qualifying language of answer choices: some, significant, and, here, thrive. We have our target group, walkers and cyclists, our target area, downtown, and our target outcome, businesses began to thrive. This is the GMAT™ bending backwards to over-qualify an otherwise correlated but less certain answer. If we were told only that the businesses began to see an increase in revenue or something similarly vague, then this answer would be little better than (D).


There are two problems as I see it with this one. The first is a fatal flaw: the entire answer is based on a conditional. We have no guarantee or even assurance that such enforcement measures will be taken. Sure, I like rigorously, but the overarching frame dampens its impact. Then, although the passage does state that the goal of the plan is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses, and this answer touches on such a possibility, more people... than [there] would otherwise be could refer to just two additional people. We want something less like some and more like a significant number. Between thriving businesses in (C)—without a conditional—and a nebulous more here, we should appreciate the message the GMAT™ gods are hoping to send us.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about this one. When CR clicks, it brings a joy similar to cracking a difficult Quant question.

- Andrew

This is a Strengthen question: we're looking for something that makes the plan seem likely to succeed

If we have other examples of similar plans working, doesn't that make us more confident of this plan?

Or will we we have more confidence in something that has never been tried before? (No, we won't)

It's true that correlation is not causation, but correlation COULD mean causation

When we have multiple examples of correlation, the probability that these were all coincidence reduces.
It would be too much of a coincidence that the number shoppers and walkers just happened to increase in other cities that implemented similar plans

Yes, there could be other reasons why walkers and workers increased in those other cities -- but it's definitely possible that the traffic restrictions were responsible

Which brings us back to the fact that this is a Strengthen question.
We're not looking for foolproof evidence that the plan will definitely work

And C is the best of the answer choices

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

It's between C and D.

D is a conditional statement: IF the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.

What if the lane restrictions are not enforced? Will people not be attracted to the downtown businesses? We can't be certain that the lane restrictions will be enforced if we're given a conditional statement.

Therefore C wins, by process of elimination.
_________________

I too hate the inconsistency that others have noted in CR questions. Could it be that D is incorrect b/c it talks about LANE RESTRICTIONS? The passage simply talks about reducing the number of lanes.

A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and is considering a plan that would reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians. The intent is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in.

Plan is to reduce the # of lanes for automobiles and increase # of lanes for bikes/pedstrians > Attract more workers and shoppers (goal)

-prediction is that increasing the # of lanes for pedestrians will attract people since downtown would be easier to navigate

Which of the following would, if true, most strongly support the prediction that the plan would achieve its goal?

(A) People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so.
-health benefits are irrelevant…we need something that ties together the passage specifically by connecting the idea that fewer automobile lanes will attract more workers/shoppers

(B) Most people who prefer to shop at suburban malls instead of downtown urban areas do so because parking is easier and cheaper at the former.
-this doesn’t help the argument…people went to suburban malls b/c parking is easier and cheaper…well now with fewer lanes for cars (and presumably fewer parking spots)…things will still be difficult

(C) In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
-Correct. This provides us with evidence that the plan will work as predicted.

(D) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
-focus is on number of lanes …not lane restrictions

(E) Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.
-well this weakens the argument…presumably these people need to use vehicles to get downtown, but now there is less room for them to operate …hence they would be discouraged from coming downtown…the opposite of what is desired