kntombat wrote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Which of the following would, if true, most strongly support the prediction that the plan would achieve its goal?
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.
Quote:
(C) In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
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).
Quote:
(D) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
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