Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 16:19 It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 16:19
Close
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
GulfTube
Joined: 13 Apr 2026
Last visit: 17 Aug 2026
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
70
 [1]
Given Kudos: 77
Posts: 210
Kudos: 70
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
AviNFC
Joined: 31 May 2023
Last visit: 09 Aug 2026
Posts: 365
Own Kudos:
421
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 365
Kudos: 421
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
MANASH94
Joined: 25 Jun 2025
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 165
Own Kudos:
121
 [1]
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Schools: IIM IIM ISB
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72
GPA: 2.9
Products:
Schools: IIM IIM ISB
GMAT Focus 1: 525 Q80 V76 DI72
Posts: 165
Kudos: 121
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
jefferyillman
Joined: 01 Dec 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 112
Own Kudos:
82
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 112
Kudos: 82
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
1. Data from similar cities shows that over 80 percent of urban air pollution originates from regional commuters, and that implementing congestion pricing significantly reduces this pollution and decreases transit times by encouraging commutung during non peak hours and carpooling.

This supports her argument a lot.

5. Congestion pricing frequently leads to traffic displacement, with drivers cutting through residential streets, increasing local gridlock and accident risk. This weakens the mayors argument as this would worsen safety and worsen congestion on side streets.






Building more lanes does not do either traffic calming or congestion pricing.

Gridlock and carbon emissions are related because idling cars produce more pollutants does not show that congestion pricing reduces gridlock.

City council believes pedestrian safety ismore important. This is about city council and not what the major thinks.
User avatar
Nsanghavi
Joined: 08 Jul 2025
Last visit: 29 Aug 2026
Posts: 59
Own Kudos:
46
 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Products:
Posts: 59
Kudos: 46
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The conclusion of the mayor is that price congestion needs to be implemented as it will reduce carbon emmission and the mayor does not support traffic calming.

Statement 1 - This statement supports the mayor's claim and hence it will strengthen the argument
Statement 2 - This statement weakens the claim - but only mentions about carbon emission and not about price congestion/traffic calming and hence is incorrect
Statement 3 - This statement is similar to statement 2 and hence is incorrect
Statement 4 - This statement does not talk about the argument. It only mentions the opinion of city council. Hence not correct.
Statement 5 - This statement weakens the mayor's claim and hence will be the answer.
User avatar
SmileAndSolve
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
52
 [1]
Given Kudos: 329
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 4
Products:
Posts: 81
Kudos: 52
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
1. STRENGTHEN -> It provides stat proof of her positioning working
2. Irrelevant -> building lanes out of question
3. doesn't address her opinion, states basic facts
4. doesn't attack opinion
5. WEAKEN -> weakens by pointing it doesn't address either safety or emissions
User avatar
chasing725
Joined: 22 Jun 2025
Last visit: 16 Aug 2026
Posts: 241
Own Kudos:
235
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Location: United States (OR)
Schools: Stanford
Schools: Stanford
Posts: 241
Kudos: 235
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
City C is considering two urban planning concepts for traffic management: traffic calming and congestion pricing. Traffic calming involves physical design changes to streets, such as speed bumps, roundabouts, and curb extensions, that are intended to slow vehicles and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In contrast, congestion pricing is a market-based strategy that charges drivers a fee to enter high-traffic zones during peak hours, aiming to reduce the total volume of cars by incentivizing the use of public transit or off-peak travel. Although traffic calming would likely increase safety and livability at a neighborhood level, the mayor asserts that it does little to reduce regional traffic volume, so she favors congestion pricing for its reduction of carbon emissions and efficient management of large-scale urban gridlock.

Select Strengthen for the statement that would, if true, most strengthen the mayor’s position, and select Weaken for the statement that would, if true, most weaken the mayor’s position. Make only two selections, one in each column.


Option 1 supports. It clearly states that congestion pricing helps to reduce pollution and traffic delays in cities that're similar.

Option 2 does not seem relevant because it is about adding more lanes and it does not discuss traffic calming or congestion pricing.

Option 3 also supports the mayor. It explains how reducing traffic jams can help to reduce emissions. However it is not as specific as Option 1.

Option 4 does not really help the mayor because it says that safety is more important. This is the view of the city council. It does not provide evidence about which policy is better.

Option 5 is the worst because it really weakens the mayors position. It says that congestion pricing can cause traffic and accidents, in neighborhoods.

I think the following are the answers :

Strengthen : Option 1 (Data from similar ...... and carpooling)

Weaken : Option 5. (Congestion pricing frequently .... neighborhoods)
User avatar
FlushLoop
Joined: 05 Jul 2026
Last visit: 06 Aug 2026
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Posts: 62
Kudos: 57
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Strengthen: Option 1

Reason: The mayor thinks congestion pricing can help reduce traffic jams and vehicle emissions. This option directly links congestion pricing to pollution and better traffic which supports what the mayor is saying.

Weaken: Option 5

Reason: The mayor says congestion pricing will reduce traffic congestion.. If congestion pricing makes drivers use side streets and causes more accidents then it creates a new problem, for the mayors argument.

Quick elimination:

* Option 2: This option talks about lanes, not the policies being discussed. It is not relevant.

* Option 3: This option shows that traffic and emissions are connected. It does not prove that congestion pricing works.

* Option 4: This option supports the idea of calming traffic. It is just someones opinion and not real evidence.


Strengthen : Option 1
Weaken : Option 5
User avatar
ajain31
Joined: 09 Nov 2024
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
57
 [1]
Given Kudos: 68
Location: United Kingdom
GPA: 71%
Posts: 70
Kudos: 57
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mayor argument is, congestion pricing reduces carbon emissions AND congestion pricing improves large scale traffic flow.

Data from similar cities shows that over 80 percent of urban air pollution originates from regional commuters and that implementing cong pricing reduce pollution....
this directly supports both parts - strengthen

weaken
cong pricing frequently leads to traffic displacement in which drivers avoid playing the fee to enter... this undermines the mayor as it suggests traffic simply moves elsewhere with dangerous consequences as it compromises safety, the very benefit associated with traffic calming.

other options are weaker:
induced demand from building lanes is an alternative policy not related to cong pricing
idling cars create pollution establishes a connection but does not show congestion pricing solves it
city council has a different value/priority rather than sowing mayors factual reasoning is incorrect
User avatar
alamin8
Joined: 24 May 2025
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
79
 [1]
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting, Technology
GPA: 3.89
Posts: 183
Kudos: 79
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
According to the City Mayor, congestion pricing is better to help reduce the carbon emission as the drivers will not be willing to use high traffic areas or pay any additional tolls.

Statement 1: Similar cities have been successful by utilizing the same pathway, which leads to less traffic during peak hours. Therefore, carbon emission has decreased by 80%. It is strengthening the city mayor's conclusion. Therefore, it is a strength.
Statement 2: If the carbon emission increases, there is no point in building more lanes. Eliminate.
Statement 3: The city mayor wants to solve both gridlock and carbon emissions. However, the statement does not state how to solve the problems. Eliminate.
Statement 4: Definitely, we know that public safety is important. However, the city mayor's priority was to reduce carbon emissions. It is going against the mayor's conclusding statement. Eliminate.
Statement 5: Drivers are trying to avoid pay fees by entering into the residential area. It will lead to more carbon emissions in the local areas where the mayor wants to reduce emissions and deadlok. Opposite direction. Weakener. It is a weakening statement.

Answer: Statement 1: Strength
Statement 5: Weaken
User avatar
harshitaa45
Joined: 20 Feb 2021
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 49
Own Kudos:
30
 [1]
Given Kudos: 8
Products:
Posts: 49
Kudos: 30
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The conclusion is Congestion pricing helps with reduction of carbon emission and large scale urban gridlocking
For strengthening this the best one is the first statement that states many cities implementing congestion pricing were successful and that also promoted carpooling and using in offpeak hours
For weaking the last statement is the best one as it states that with congestion pricing leads to traffic displacement where people start using residential roads leading to more accidents and increasing the local grid locks.
User avatar
amansoni5
Joined: 16 Nov 2021
Last visit: 02 Sep 2026
Posts: 94
Own Kudos:
64
 [1]
Given Kudos: 218
Posts: 94
Kudos: 64
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
2 Strategies - Traffic Calming and Congestion Pricing
Traffic Calming: Physical structures like speed bumps, roundabouts, curb extensions etc.
Congesting Pricing: Charging drivers a fee to enter high traffic zone

Traffic Calming increases safety but as per the Mayor, does little to reduce the congestion
Hence, the mayor favours Congestion Pricing.

We need to find a statement that Strengthens and one which weakens her position.

A - The statement provides evidential support to the claims made by the Mayor. Data shows that 80% pollution is because of regional commuters and that implementing congestion pricing decreases emission while also reduces the traffic congestion - Strengthens

B - It is irrelevant to the discussion given that we are required to strengthen or weaken Mayor's position. Building more lanes is not part of the discussion. Out of scope

C - Okay so gridlock and emission are related problems. But It doesn't support whether we should favour one plan over the other. It is just information. Incorrect

D - Okay so city council favours traffic calming citing higher importance for safety of pedestrians and cyclists. However, the questions specifically asks to strengthen or weaken Mayor's position. Council's position is separate and currently, based on the question, is not something that affect's mayor's position. Furthermore, it only shows which cause is more important (safety vs lower congestion and reduction in emission) and not which plan is efficient. Hence, incorrect.

E - This actually attacks Mayor's position by stating that the congestion pricing would lead to traffic displacement and not only will the safety of the neighbourhood is affected but also there will be gridlocks formed in the local neighbourhood. - Weaken
User avatar
anushree01
Joined: 06 Apr 2024
Last visit: 05 Sep 2026
Posts: 253
Own Kudos:
91
 [1]
Given Kudos: 183
Products:
Posts: 253
Kudos: 91
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Option 1 - Directly supports mayor`s suggestion shoeing evidence that similar cities have beneffited
Option 5 - shows congestion pricing can create new traffic problems and undermines the mayor`s pov
Bunuel
City C is considering two urban planning concepts for traffic management: traffic calming and congestion pricing. Traffic calming involves physical design changes to streets, such as speed bumps, roundabouts, and curb extensions, that are intended to slow vehicles and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In contrast, congestion pricing is a market-based strategy that charges drivers a fee to enter high-traffic zones during peak hours, aiming to reduce the total volume of cars by incentivizing the use of public transit or off-peak travel. Although traffic calming would likely increase safety and livability at a neighborhood level, the mayor asserts that it does little to reduce regional traffic volume, so she favors congestion pricing for its reduction of carbon emissions and efficient management of large-scale urban gridlock.

Select Strengthen for the statement that would, if true, most strengthen the mayor’s position, and select Weaken for the statement that would, if true, most weaken the mayor’s position. Make only two selections, one in each column.
User avatar
kalkurd
Joined: 31 Oct 2025
Last visit: 25 Jul 2026
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
26
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 28
Kudos: 26
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Strengthen - row 1, weaken - row 5

Her claim is that congestion pricing cuts emissions and beats calming on regional gridlock.

row 1 backs both details. 80% of pollution is regional commuters and pricing demonstrably cuts it.

Row 5 addresses the gridlock as drivers run through side streets to dodge the fee, generating gridlock and crashes. Her tool causes the problem calming was meant to fix.
User avatar
noerd23
Joined: 03 Jan 2024
Last visit: 21 Aug 2026
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
42
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: India
Posts: 52
Kudos: 42
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
- 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 1

Weaken: Option 5
User avatar
Punt
Joined: 09 Jul 2024
Last visit: 10 Aug 2026
Posts: 96
Own Kudos:
77
 [1]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: India
Posts: 96
Kudos: 77
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mayor's arguement : Although Traffic calming would likely increase safety and livability a a neighbourhood level, it does little to reduce regional traffic volume, so she favours congestion pricing for its reduction of carbon emissions & efficient management of large scale urban gridlock.

We need to find the statement which favours supports (strengthner) congestion pricing over traffic calming and another statemnet that weakens this position.

Statement 1: this talks about the implementation of congestion pricing that reduces this pollution & decreases transit times by encouraging commuting in non - peak hours and carpooling. this directly supposrt the Mayor's conclusion. - Strengthner

Statement 2: This statement doesn't address positive or negative about traffic congestion.

Statement 3: This statemnet talks abouts pollutants & carbon emission , nothing about congestion or its pricing.

Statement 4: Thsi statemnet talks about importamce of safety that is out of scope of this arguemnet.

Statement 5: This weakens Mayor's position as this indicate that congestion pricing has increased the congestion instead of solving it. - Weaken.

Answer:
Strengtner: Statement 1
Weaken: Statement 5
Bunuel
City C is considering two urban planning concepts for traffic management: traffic calming and congestion pricing. Traffic calming involves physical design changes to streets, such as speed bumps, roundabouts, and curb extensions, that are intended to slow vehicles and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In contrast, congestion pricing is a market-based strategy that charges drivers a fee to enter high-traffic zones during peak hours, aiming to reduce the total volume of cars by incentivizing the use of public transit or off-peak travel. Although traffic calming would likely increase safety and livability at a neighborhood level, the mayor asserts that it does little to reduce regional traffic volume, so she favors congestion pricing for its reduction of carbon emissions and efficient management of large-scale urban gridlock.

Select Strengthen for the statement that would, if true, most strengthen the mayor’s position, and select Weaken for the statement that would, if true, most weaken the mayor’s position. Make only two selections, one in each column.
User avatar
icandoit4u
Joined: 19 Sep 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
45
 [1]
Given Kudos: 127
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q83 V79 DI80
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q83 V79 DI80
Posts: 52
Kudos: 45
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Ans: strengthen - 1st option because supports the conclusion that congestion pricing manages gridlock and reduces pollution
weaken - last option because this shows congestion pricing does not help when people reroute to dodge fee and this doesnt help with the traffic which it was supposed to solve hence it weakens

Bunuel
City C is considering two urban planning concepts for traffic management: traffic calming and congestion pricing. Traffic calming involves physical design changes to streets, such as speed bumps, roundabouts, and curb extensions, that are intended to slow vehicles and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. In contrast, congestion pricing is a market-based strategy that charges drivers a fee to enter high-traffic zones during peak hours, aiming to reduce the total volume of cars by incentivizing the use of public transit or off-peak travel. Although traffic calming would likely increase safety and livability at a neighborhood level, the mayor asserts that it does little to reduce regional traffic volume, so she favors congestion pricing for its reduction of carbon emissions and efficient management of large-scale urban gridlock.

Select Strengthen for the statement that would, if true, most strengthen the mayor’s position, and select Weaken for the statement that would, if true, most weaken the mayor’s position. Make only two selections, one in each column.
User avatar
remdelectus
Joined: 01 Sep 2025
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 120
Own Kudos:
112
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 120
Kudos: 112
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Statement one "data from similar cities show that over 80% of urban air pollution originates from regional commuters, and that implementing congestion pricing significantly reduces this pollution and decreases transit times by encouraging commuting during non-peak hours and carpooling" Strengthens: This statement supports the mayors claim that congestion pricing is effective at reducing carbon emission and managing large scale traffic congestion.

Statement Five "Congestion pricing frequently leads to traffic displacement in which drivers avoid paying the fee to enter high-traffic zones by cutting through residential side streets, increasing both local gridlock and risk of accidents in neighborhoods."
This weakens the mayor's statement. It shows that instead of fixing gridlock, congestion pricing merely shifting it to neighborhoods, while simultaneously creating safety hazards that traffic could have prevented.
User avatar
GamePine
Joined: 31 May 2026
Last visit: 04 Aug 2026
Posts: 61
Own Kudos:
55
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q79 V85 DI82
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q79 V85 DI82
Posts: 61
Kudos: 55
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The only thing I thought to do for this one is to just go through each statement one by one and see if the strengthen or weaken the argument.

Statement 1 provides data that shows that commuters are a significant source of pollution and that congesting decreased pollution and traffic. Both show that decreasing the number of commuters would decrease pollution which supports the mayor's claim about congestion pricing reducing emissions and managing traffic

2 is not relevant because it is talking about an alternative to traffic calming and congestion pricing that is not mentioned in the passage.

if 3 is true it doesn't impact the claim because the claim is talking about decreasing the total volume to decrease pollution and limit traffic compared to traffic calming. More of a volume vs. safety problem. A gridlock doesn't address either of these.

4 talks about the city coucil's priority being safety which would lean into the traffic calming strategy, but that is not tell us if congestion pricing reduces emissions or not.

5 weakens the argument because it shows congestion pricing might not reduce traffic and just leads cars into neighborhoods they wouldn't have otherwise used.

So I have statement 1 as strengthen and 5 as weaken.
User avatar
dhart
Joined: 02 Feb 2026
Last visit: 06 Sep 2026
Posts: 178
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Posts: 178
Kudos: 88
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Strngthrn is option A ) Data from similar citites show that congestion prcing reduces the high traffic voulme and its effect of pollution

Weaken is option B ) where as to conegestion pricing , drivers avoid going into main city traffic and cut in though neighbouring short cuts , causing gridlocks and pollutions so mayors thinking that of neighbourhood safety is unprotected.
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
Math Expert
113167 posts
DI Forum Moderator
409 posts