Last visit was: 26 Apr 2026, 20:54

It is currently 26 Apr 2026, 20:54

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and

1 2 3 4 5 6

Braintree

Joined: 14 Jul 2022

Last visit: 02 Jan 2026

Posts: 204

Own Kudos:

129

Given Kudos: 244

Location: India

GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42 Verified score

GPA: 3.99

GMAT 1: 730 Q48 V42 Verified score

Posts: 204

Kudos: 129

Updated on: 18 Nov 2022, 17:51

Originally posted by Braintree on 18 Nov 2022, 17:13.
Last edited by Braintree on 18 Nov 2022, 17:51, edited 2 times in total.

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

(D) tells us that if the plan is implemented, and then rigorously enforced, then it will succeed.

This is where you lose me, Braintree.[/quote]

Oh dear, I see it - the issue is with the latter part of the sentence: (D) tells us that if the plan is implemented, and then rigorously enforced, then it will succeed..

Answer choice (D) just says that "more people will likely be attracted..than would otherwise be.". And doesn't imply the overall success of the plan.

It could be that 'just' implementing the plan reduces the number of people, and subsequently rigorously implementing it slightly increases the number, but not to prior levels.

thnx!
bt[/quote]

Hi avigutman Braintree - dont you think the word "otherwise" imples BOTH
-- if the plan is NOT EVEN IMPLEMENTED (i.e. current situation)
and/or
-- if the plan is IMPLEMENTED but not enforced

So "rigorous enforcement" is BETTER than BOTH scenarios

-------------------------------------

Analogy
"I am not VERY rude. That means, i am
-- Little rude
-- Not Rude at all.

Both scenarios are plausible.[/quote]

No, jabhatta2,

"otherwise BE" stands in for the logical complement of the verb of the clause that precedes it (the original verb needs to be a form of 'be')

Here the verb is 'ARE' so it's logical complement is 'ARE NOT'. So we can instead write the entire sentence as:

If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers ARE rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would be if the proposed lane restrictions on drivers [b]ARE NOT rigorously enforced [/b]

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,285

Own Kudos:

1,908

[1]

Given Kudos: 66

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,285

Kudos: 1,908

[1]

18 Nov 2022, 17:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

Hi avigutman Braintree - dont you think the word "than otherwise be " covers BOTH scenarios
(1) if the plan is NOT EVEN IMPLEMENTED (i.e. current situation)
and/or
(2) if the plan is IMPLEMENTED but not enforced

So "rigorous enforcement" is BETTER than (1) and BETTER than (2).

-------------------------------------

Analogy
"I am not VERY rude. That means, i could be
(1) Little rude
(2) Not Rude at all.

Both scenarios are plausible.

No, jabhatta2, your analogy is not analogous. You're missing an important phrase: "than would otherwise be".
Consider this sentence:

Quote:

If Twitter is destroyed by Elon Musk, more Twitter employees will likely be fired than would otherwise be.

This sentence compares the number of fired employees in a scenario in which Musk destroys Twitter to a scenario in which Musk doesn't destroy Twitter.
Now, in order for Twitter to be destroyed by Elon Musk, Twitter needed to first be purchased by Elon Musk. Nevertheless, you surely wouldn't think that the sentence above tells us anything about Twitter employees in a scenario in which Elon Musk never purchased Twitter, right?

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 26 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,441

Own Kudos:

79,421

[1]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,441

Kudos: 79,421

[1]

18 Nov 2022, 23:55

Kudos

Bookmarks

Braintree

avigutman

Braintree

(D) tells us that if the plan is implemented, and then rigorously enforced, then it will succeed.

This is where you lose me, Braintree.

Oh dear, I see it - the issue is with the latter part of the sentence: (D) tells us that if the plan is implemented, and then rigorously enforced, then it will succeed..

Answer choice (D) just says that "more people will likely be attracted..than would otherwise be.". And doesn't imply the overall success of the plan.

It could be that 'just' implementing the plan reduces the number of people, and subsequently rigorously implementing it slightly increases the number, but not to prior levels.

thnx!
bt

I have given my thoughts on this point in these two comments above:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-moderately ... l#p3033401
https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-moderately ... l#p3033945

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 26 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,441

Own Kudos:

79,421

[2]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,441

Kudos: 79,421

[2]

19 Nov 2022, 00:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

BLTN

KarishmaB

Bunuel

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?

A. People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so.
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.
C. In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
D. If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
E. Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.

CR95631.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION

The problem with (D) is very subtle.

Take a simpler example.

Me: I want to lose 10 pounds.
Dietician: I am giving you this diet chart.

Will I lose 10 pounds?

A: Other people who were GIVEN this diet chart lost 10 pounds.
B: If you FOLLOW this diet strictly, you will lose 10 pounds.

One has to predict whether I will lose 10 pounds. What helps in saying whether I will or not? Does A help or B help?
All one knows is that I got the diet chart. If other people who got the diet chart lost pounds, it does make it more likely that I will lose too. So A helps.
Does one know whether I will follow the diet chart strictly? No. One needs more information for that to help.

Though I admit, this is a tough one. I know that if situations are comparable, a success story of another town is a strengthener for a success story here so (C) certainly helps.
On the other hand, I am not sure how much leeway is left for the drivers when one reduces the number of lanes. But one is not allowed to question the OG answers hence there is some learning here.

Dear KarishmaB,
could you elucidate what is the conclusion of the stimulus?
If "Plan will achieve the goal" then which goal ?
If goal is reduction of the number of lanes will lead to attraction of more workers and shoppers then how does such conclusion related to "thrive" in option C ?
I declined C because it does not bolster the claim that plan will attract more workers and shoppers, and I chose E because it says that some people live far away and maybe additional lanes can help them reach destination. I now see that "most people who..." is just a subset, but the option E relates to the conclusion.

Quote:

E. Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.

Thanks beforehand.

BLTN

Plan: Increase lanes for bicycles and pedestrians.
Aim: Attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses (basically to improve business because more shoppers means better business)
Logic tells us that improving business would be the ultimate goal.

We need to support that the plan will work.

C. In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
These actions taken in other similar cities improved business.
It makes it more likely that it will work here too.

E. Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.
Most people who ride bicycles are far away from downtown. Then it actually become unlikely that they will be able to visit downtown on bicycles (Bikes and walking work over relatively short distances only for most people). Hence, increasing lanes for bikes and reducing for cars may actually have the opposite impact. The plan may backfire.
Hence, (E) reduces the probability of the plan's success.

ACnDC17

Joined: 15 Jul 2022

Last visit: 29 Apr 2023

Posts: 1

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 1

Kudos: 0

01 Apr 2023, 07:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

(D) is not as strong as (C) here. AC D is giving a hypothetical situation (IF they do this, it will LIKELY happen). We wont something stronger. C doesn't f*** around and provides support that definitively strengthens the argument.

Ahi

Joined: 01 Apr 2023

Last visit: 17 Apr 2026

Posts: 42

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 68

Posts: 42

Kudos: 49

15 Nov 2023, 06:01

Kudos

Bookmarks

chrtpmdr
d) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.

which explicitly states If the proposal is restricted to drivers it doesn't mean the proposal will get executed.In future also please note law=! Compliance
Proposal =! execution or implementation
so option D didn't strengthen the plan also check the scope of the argument in option D; it says restriction on drivers which drivers doesn't mention but in option C the scope of the argument explicitly says for walkers and cyclist

chienp054

Joined: 15 Nov 2023

Last visit: 14 Jun 2024

Posts: 6

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 14

Posts: 6

Kudos: 10

27 Nov 2023, 04:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

I get why C is the answer but I eliminated C because passage stated "moderately large" city. And C says "moderately sized" cities.

Logically, moderately large is probably larger than moderately sized cities. Can someone explain why C is still the answer?

mojizohan

Joined: 18 Jul 2022

Last visit: 29 Aug 2024

Posts: 11

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 190

Location: Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Schools: Booth '26 Columbia CBS'26 Fuqua '26 HBS '27 Haas '27 Kellog '27 Kellogg LBS Sloan '26 Said '27 Stern '26 Wharton Yale '26

GPA: 3.8

Schools: Booth '26 Columbia CBS'26 Fuqua '26 HBS '27 Haas '27 Kellog '27 Kellogg LBS Sloan '26 Said '27 Stern '26 Wharton Yale '26

Posts: 11

Kudos: 1

27 Nov 2023, 06:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

My BIGGEST issue with the answer choice C is the wording where it says: "downtown businesses began to thrive." which requires many assumptions to be translated into "attract more workers and shoppers" which was the conclusion here. That was why I eliminated C , which I think was the right thing to do.

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 24 Apr 2026

Posts: 7,391

Own Kudos:

70,818

[2]

Given Kudos: 2,132

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,391

Kudos: 70,818

[2]

31 Dec 2023, 18:49

Kudos

Bookmarks

mojizohan

I feel your pain here. I don't love (C) either. But here's the thing: you don't have to love the answer you select. You don't even have to like it. It just has to be the best of the bunch.

This is why when you're going through the answers, you want to focus on what's definitely wrong, and then see what you're left with.

When I read (C), I think about it like this: imagine that I'm on the committee debating whether to implement this new policy. If I learned that in other moderately sized cities, increased biking/walking accessibility improved business downtown, would I be more likely to sign on to the plan?

I think so. I'd have some of the same reservations you did -- is it possible that these other cities are fundamentally different in ways that make them inappropriate benchmarks? Sure. But (C) does strengthen the idea that there’s a general link between bike accessibility and business success. In other words, it's not definitely wrong.

So I'll hold on to it, knowing it's not a perfect answer.

And what it comes down to is this: there's nothing better. None of the other answer choices provide any link at all between bike accessibility and business success. So even though my initial reaction was, "meh, not great, but not wrong", It ends up being the correct answer.

The takeaway: it's okay to hang on to flawed answers! We don't need perfect. We just need one that’s better than the other four.

I hope that helps!

Maxsparrow

Joined: 19 Aug 2023

Last visit: 07 Jun 2024

Posts: 63

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 82

Location: Indonesia

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q85 V83 DI85 Verified score

GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27 Verified score

GMAT 2: 640 Q50 V26 Verified score

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q85 V83 DI85 Verified score

GMAT 2: 640 Q50 V26 Verified score

Posts: 63

Kudos: 59

15 Feb 2024, 07:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

AnishPassi

I think a nuance of option D has been missed in many explanations. So while many of us have eliminated D, it is not for the right reasons.

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.

Most explanations eliminate D by stating that the option presents a conditional and that the added condition ('rigorously enforced') is an additional requirement that we cannot assume must be met.
In other words, the explanations go something along these lines:
1. We need to support the prediction that implementing lane restrictions will attract more people to downtown businesses.
2. (D) states: If lane restrictions are enforced rigorously then more people will be attracted to downtown businesses.
3. Since we do not know whether the restrictions will be rigorously enforced, this option is incorrect.

Or, put another way, a common explanation is:
1. The answer choice is of the form If X then Y.
2. Since we don’t know whether X will happen, we can’t say whether Y will happen.
Thus the option doesn’t support.

I have two issues with such reasoning.

1. My first issue: The question stem.

Quote:

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

What do we need to support?
The prediction.

What is the prediction?
That the plan would achieve its goal.

The prediction is not that the plan will be executed.
The prediction is, I repeat, that the plan would achieve its goal.

Let’s say I make a prediction:

Cleaning our surroundings (plan) will make India a better travel destination (goal).

Am I making both of the following predictions:
1. We'll clean our surroundings
2. Cleaning them will make India a better travel destination.
?

The way I see it, I am not making the first prediction.

Will we clean our surroundings? I don't know.
But, I do predict that if we clean them, India will become a better travel destination.

2. My second issue: Understanding what the answer choice means.

Option D does not present a conditional in the sense that these posts explain. It presents a comparison. It is critical that we understand the comparison clearly. Let's understand precisely what the word 'otherwise' implies.

What is the 'otherwise' situation?

I. Does the answer choice state that if lane restrictions are rigorously enforced, more people will be attracted to downtown businesses than would be the case if the lane restrictions were not even enforced (i.e. compared with the current scenario)?

II. Or, does it state that if lane restrictions are rigorously enforced, more people will be attracted to downtown businesses than would be the case if the lane restrictions are not rigorously enforced? (i.e., a comparison between two hypothetical scenarios?)

The first interpretation presents a comparison between a situation in which lane restrictions are implemented and rigorously enforced, and a situation in which the restrictions are not even implemented (the present scenario).

The second interpretation presents a comparison between a situation in which lane restrictions are rigorously enforced and a situation in which lane restrictions are not rigorously enforced.

Hope you notice now that the option actually means the second interpretation (II).

Do you see it?

Now on to the reasoning.

Question: What would support the prediction that the plan would attract more people to downtown businesses?

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.

Consider the following scenario: A certain percentage of the population appreciates lane restrictions and would be interested to visit downtown if these restrictions were implemented. However, within that chunk, a sub-percentage would only visit downtown if the restrictions are rigorously enforced. In other words, if lane restrictions are rigorously enforced, this entire chunk of the population would visit downtown. However, if the restrictions are not rigorously enforced, only a part of this population would visit downtown. This scenario is inline with option D.

But, how does this chunk of the population that appreciates lane restrictions relate to the total visitors to downtown? Does this chunk represent more people than currently visit downtown? We have no idea.

Here's another example to explain this option:
Let's say in a country the voters are to decide between two parties: Marvel (incumbent) and DC.

Now, let's say we have to figure out whether DC would be better than Marvel. And, we're given that If DC governs well then more people would be happy than would be the case if DC does not govern well. Does this statement lead us to understand how DC would fare against Marvel? It doesn't. The comparison is within two DC situations.

Answer choice D follows a similar structure.

This answer choice has no impact on the argument.

Now, let's add option C to the mix.

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.

If in these other cities, similar measures led to the number of visitors going up from their initial numbers, aren't you relatively more convinced that these measures could lead to the number of visitors going beyond the current number in the city in question as well? Of course, there is no certainty. But we are not looking for something that would confirm the prediction. We're simply looking for support, not a confirmation.

I often find students struggle with analogies in strengthen questions.

"If it worked for y, what's the guarantee that it'll work for x as well?" - a paraphrase of a question I often find GMAT takers wondering about.

Answer: There is no guarantee. However, we aren't looking for a guarantee. We are looking for support.

When you just started your GMAT preparation and were trying to decide which course/ resource/ tutor to go for, did you look at reviews and testimonials by other students? If you did, doesn't the same question apply here as well: If a course helped someone else score well, what's the guarantee that it could help you score well also? And the answer is the same. There is no guarantee. However, your belief in the course increases if you look at positive reviews left by test takers whom you might have some similarities with. The same reasoning applies here. Remember 'support' or 'strengthen' does not mean 'confirm'.

In this question, option D is incorrect (it does not support at all), and option C is correct (it supports).

An article in which I discuss analogies in CR answer choices in more detail: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-handl ... 70572.html.

First of all, I like it how you break it down wholeheartedly brother, Salute you!
Secondly, it appears I am just one of huge number of students feel violated of C and D answers choices, and given that this question is classified as medium???, lol
Thirdly, I sometimes hate it that the official explanation so I tend to go to Gmat Club

But when I thought about it, there is no way the official response is a total nonsense. From your reasoning Anshi, I kind of look back and forth with the official answer, and yes I think we lack the nuance, especially what is imposed by the Passage

Official Answers:

C. In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and bicyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
D. If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.

Official response:

C. Correct. If other moderately sized cities that have made their downtown areas more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists have seen their downtown businesses begin to thrive soon afterwards, this is evidence—even if not conclusive—that the changes produced the thriving. Consequently, it is reasonable to think that the same will result for the city in question.
D. It might be the case that rigorously enforcing lane restrictions will attract more people to downtown businesses than would otherwise be the case, but the information provided does not indicate how strictly lane restrictions will be enforced.

The passage:

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.

In a Evaluation of a Plan type of question, we should focus on the particular plan that is being evaluated (boldfaced).
Notice that the passage never includes how rigorously it should be done, so the way it is done was never part of the plan.
Simply saying we go way overboard with Option D
On the other hand, option C sticks to the plan (similar plan, which is reduction of autos and increment of pedestrians, in other similar cities results in expected outcome --> Support a generalization that the passage will result in the same way)

Thus, as the question asks:
Which of the following would, if true, most strongly support the prediction that the plan would achieve its goal?
That is going to be C

That my friends, is how I make peace tonight and accept my mistakes. Hope you guys can make peace with it as well

GMATGuruNY

Tutor

Joined: 04 Aug 2010

Last visit: 02 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,347

Own Kudos:

3,906

[1]

Given Kudos: 9

Schools:Dartmouth College

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 1,347

Kudos: 3,906

[1]

15 Feb 2024, 14:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

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?

(A) People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so.
(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.
(C) In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
(D) , more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
(E) Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.

CR95631.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION

With regard to option D:

This is a PLANNING argument.
Plan:
Reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians
Goal:
Attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses

To strengthen the argument, we need to give a reason to think that the plan -- IF IMPLEMENTED -- will achieve its goal.
Note the inclusion of the phrase if implemented.
The argument is PREMISED on the implemention of the plan.
In other words, we should consider it a PREMISE that the plan is implemented and that the number of lanes for cars is reduced.
The only question is whether the GOAL is achieved -- whether workers and shoppers are actually attracted to downtown businesses.

D: If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced
As noted earlier, the argument is premised on the implementation of the plan (reducing the number of lanes for cars).
The red portion above seems to suggest that the number will be reduced only if the restrictions are rigorously enforced.
No.
For the purposes of the argument, the reduction in the number of lanes should be considered a premise.
Any answer choice that seems to strengthen or weaken a premise is wrong.
Since D seems to suggest that the premise will happen only if the restrictions are rigorously enforced, eliminate D.

Raman109

Joined: 17 Aug 2009

Last visit: 28 Jul 2025

Posts: 706

Own Kudos:

212

Given Kudos: 33

Posts: 706

Kudos: 212

19 Feb 2024, 07:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

Understanding the argument -
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. - Fact/Background information.
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. - Conclusion.

Goal - to attract more workers and shoppers (for downtown businesses)
Plan - reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians

Option Elimination - Strengthen

(A) People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so. - Out of scope.

(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. - Out of scope. The comparison between suburbs and downtown areas is out of scope. Parking is not even mentioned.

(C) In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive. - ok. Share a positive example of "other moderately sized cities (plural)" where such a plan helped achieve the goal.

(D) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be. - Let's unpack it. "more people" will be attracted if the restrictions are rigorously enforced than if they would not be rigorously enforced. Say 80% of people will get attracted if they rigorously enforce, and if they don't rigorously enforce, 10% of the people will get attracted. This comparison between rigorously and not rigorously is not even discussed in the argument. At best, it's a combination of great distortion and out-of-scope elements.

Part of the challenge is that it's worded as a sufficient condition, but the last part, "the more than comparison," is a deal breaker.

(E) Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas. - Weakener.

Ankit__7182

Joined: 02 Mar 2024

Last visit: 29 Jun 2025

Posts: 56

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 88

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q84 V82 DI79 Verified score

Products:

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q84 V82 DI79 Verified score

Posts: 56

Kudos: 37

16 Jun 2024, 06:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

chrtpmdr

Sometimes I hate CR

I can swear that I've seen tons of other questions where the answer format "research from other cities/countries/communities shows that XYZ had a similar effect ..." was classified as out of the scope, yet in this question it is the prefered answer choice again.

Probably could argue hours about this but to me the OA is to ambigous and out of the scope to be the correct answer choice. Imagine that City X is in California while City Y is in Alaska, can we inference that the measure in California would have similar impact as in Alaska? Probably not.

Really hard to see what they want sometimes on CR, feels like sometimes X and sometimes Y.

In general I feel that the CR format of "choose the best out of the worst" is not really a good question format.

nightblade354 could you please help here. Still not sure between these 2 options after reading all posts

(C) In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
-> should be rejected with above explantion. No ?
(D) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
-> The word rigorous doesnt make it out of scope. in fact it definitely strengthen the arg.

nightblade354

Current Student

Joined: 31 Jul 2017

Last visit: 26 Apr 2026

Posts: 1,769

Own Kudos:

7,119

[1]

Given Kudos: 3,305

Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis

Location: United States (MA)

Concentration: Finance, Economics

Schools: Darden '25 (M)

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: Darden '25 (M)

Posts: 1,769

Kudos: 7,119

[1]

18 Jun 2024, 13:10

Kudos

Bookmarks

Ankit__7182

chrtpmdr

Hi Ankit,

Think about (C) and (D) with respect to the argument. The argument is that less automobile lanes and more bike lanes increase business by making it easier for people to get to the shops.

(C): We are told that similar-sized cities (proper comparison), who did the exact same measure, had increased business. This is a perfect fit! We are told an apples to apples comparison for the project, for the location, and for the outcome.

(D): It says more people will be attracted to the area. Well, what if they don't spend and just walk around all day? This immediately destroys this answer choice because we assumed that more people means more business; this is what GMAT writers want you to do. The easiest way to destroy an answer choice is to put assumptions into it, as I did by questioning what people might do once they are downtown. If the assumptions destroy the answer choice, you can move on. You must always look for explicit information -- never assume something.

Does this help?

Gemmie

Joined: 19 Dec 2021

Last visit: 17 Apr 2026

Posts: 484

Own Kudos:

490

Given Kudos: 76

Location: Viet Nam

Concentration: Technology, Economics

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V84 DI83 Verified score

GPA: 3.55

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V84 DI83 Verified score

Posts: 484

Kudos: 490

19 Jun 2024, 01:28

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) Weak Support: While staying healthy might be attractive, it doesn't directly address the plan's aim of making downtown easier and more pleasant to get around in, which could appeal to a broader range of people (not just health-conscious ones).

(B) Relevant, but Doesn't Support: This explains why people might choose malls, but doesn't show how the plan would attract them to downtown instead.

(C) Strong Support: This is the most relevant evidence. If similar plans in other cities led to thriving businesses, it suggests the proposed plan might have a similar positive effect. It's a real-world example demonstrating success with a similar approach.

(D) Weak Support: Enforcement might be necessary to ensure safety, but it doesn't directly address whether the plan (itslef) makes downtown more attractive.

(E) Weakens the Plan: This suggests recreational cyclists might not be the target demographic, and they might not live near downtown anyway.

TheVDR

Joined: 09 Jun 2023

Last visit: 05 Nov 2025

Posts: 254

Own Kudos:

233

Given Kudos: 20

Location: India

Posts: 254

Kudos: 233

11 Jul 2024, 02:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

If we break (D) down into possibilities, we get:

1) Restrictions were rigorously enforced and more people were attracted to downtown businesses.

2) Restrictions were NOT rigorously enforced and number of people attracted did not increase.

This is an "if" condition, so likelihood of achieving the goal is 50%.

Option (C) is an apple to apple comparison where we say something worked at some other place quite similar to ours, so the same thing should work here too.

Although (C) is vague but (D) gives us only a 50% likelihood (at best!). This makes (C) a better strengthener than (D).

Posted from my mobile device

K0315145

Joined: 29 Oct 2023

Last visit: 15 Jan 2026

Posts: 8

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 67

Posts: 8

Kudos: 3

17 Aug 2024, 23:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

chrtpmdr

Can't agree with you more. I have myself gone through lots of questions, where the OAs would eliminate comparison evidence as not necessarily applicable to this context. I dont know how to approach these sets.

MohdZaidKhan

Joined: 23 Jun 2024

Last visit: 23 Sep 2025

Posts: 21

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 64

Location: India

Schools: Stanford '27 NYU Stern

Posts: 21

Kudos: 1

15 Oct 2024, 06:47

Kudos

Bookmarks

Yes ofcourse you are right that it is not making a perfect sense . but some sense is better .We have asked to strenghten the plan and not fullproof it . because fullproofing would require too much information even stats also of all kind still future would be uncertain .

chrtpmdr

lavanya.18

Joined: 21 Apr 2024

Last visit: 12 Mar 2025

Posts: 120

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 679

Location: India

Concentration: Marketing, General Management

Schools: ESSEC MiM "27 HEC MiM "27 IE LBS MiM "26 INSEAD MiM "26

GPA: 7.5

Products:

Schools: ESSEC MiM "27 HEC MiM "27 IE LBS MiM "26 INSEAD MiM "26

Posts: 120

Kudos: 96

17 Oct 2024, 02:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

chrtpmdr

Agreed! I have seen many questions where an option was ruled out because it was out of scope, but here's the answer. It's weird, but it is what it is, I guess.

Tejassharmaa

Joined: 23 Jun 2024

Last visit: 08 Dec 2025

Posts: 7

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 41

Location: India

Schools: Booth '27 Haas '27 INSEAD '26 Johnson '27 LBS '26 Rotman '27 Tepper '27

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q83 V85 DI79 Verified score

GPA: 3.1

Schools: Booth '27 Haas '27 INSEAD '26 Johnson '27 LBS '26 Rotman '27 Tepper '27

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q83 V85 DI79 Verified score

Posts: 7

Kudos: 1

09 Nov 2024, 21:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

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?

(A) People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so.
(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.
(C) In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
(D) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
(E) Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.

CR95631.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION

At first, I chose D. After reading the solution, however, the simplest reasoning I came up with to feel confident about choosing C is this: the goal is to attract more workers and shoppers to the area.
Option D states, "More people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than otherwise would be." Meanwhile, option C states, "Downtown businesses have begun to thrive in other similar cities." If businesses are thriving, it means there are more shoppers and workers; otherwise, businesses would not be thriving.
So, comparing C and D, C gives me more confidence that significantly more people will actually come. Here’s why:
Suppose 100 people are coming before the plan is implemented. Afterward, D suggests “more people” will likely be attracted, but "more" could mean anything from 105 to 1000 people. Business wouldn't truly thrive if only five additional people came; thriving businesses need a substantial increase in visitors. Therefore, C is a better strengthener.