- Traffic calming improves neighborhood safety, but it does little to reduce regional traffic volume.
- Congestion pricing reduces traffic volume, carbon emissions, and large-scale gridlock.
- Therefore, the mayor believes congestion pricing is the better policy.
Strengthen: Option 1
This is the strongest support because it directly confirms the mayor's claims. It shows that in similar cities, congestion pricing reduced air pollution and improved traffic flow by encouraging people to carpool or travel during off-peak hours. These are exactly the outcomes the mayor wants—less congestion and lower carbon emissions. Since real-world evidence supports the effectiveness of congestion pricing, it makes the mayor's argument much stronger.
Weaken: Option 5
This directly challenges the mayor's preferred solution. If congestion pricing causes drivers to avoid the fee by using residential streets instead then the policy may not actually reduce traffic overall, it simply moves it to different areas. It also creates additional congestion and increases safety risks in neighborhoods. If these unintended consequences are common then congestion pricing may not achieve the benefits the mayor expects making her conclusion much weaker.
Why the other options dont work:
(2) talks about adding more lanes leading to induced demand. The argument is comparing traffic calming with congestion pricing, not discussing road expansion, so this is irrelevant
(3) says gridlock and carbon emissions are related because idling cars produce more pollution. This provides background information but doesn't show that congestion pricing is a better choice than traffic calming
(4) says the city council values pedestrian and cyclist safety more than reducing congestion and emissions. This is a difference in priorities, not evidence about which policy actually works better. It doesn't strengthen or weaken the mayor's reasoning.
Final Answers:
Strengthen: Option 1Weaken: Option 5