Bunuel
Urban Planner's Claim: The city plans to reduce traffic congestion by implementing a carpooling initiative that encourages drivers to share rides by offering tax incentives. The plan is based on the assumption that by reducing the number of single-occupancy vehicles on the roads, overall traffic volume will decrease.
Which of the following, if true, raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the city's plan to decrease traffic congestion?
Need to find the option the
seriously weakens the conclusion:
(A) Many drivers prefer to travel alone due to the flexibility and privacy it offers, even when financial incentives are offered for carpooling.
Ok hold on, Seems -ve, So scheme has no impact.(B) The tax incentives provided for carpooling are structured to disproportionately benefit higher-income drivers, potentially leading to less participation among lower-income commuters.
So what, Irrelavant. (C) Public transportation systems are likely to see an increase in use due to higher awareness of environmental issues, regardless of the carpooling initiative.
OFS(D) Most traffic congestion is due to commercial vehicles, which are not affected by carpooling incentives as they cannot realistically share vehicle space.
Hmm, This also seems to have -ve effect. (E) The tax incentives for carpooling will initially cost the city a significant amount in lost tax revenue, which could have been used for other traffic reduction measures.
So what, Irr.
So battle is between A & D. D seems to highlight a bigger source of the pblm ,Hence plan may not be fruitful.
IMO D