The correct answer is
• Before the construction of Rinland’s bicycle paths, bicycle owners made up a far greater proportion of the population in Osmaria than in Rinland.Why this undermines the argument:The argument is based on an analogy: because building bike paths caused a
significant increase in bicycle use for short trips in Rinland, doing the same in Osmaria will also cause a
significant increase.
For this argument to hold, Osmaria needs to have a large pool of potential, latent cyclists who
aren't currently riding because they lack safe paths (just like Rinland had before its paths were built).
However, the correct option points out a critical difference between the two populations
before Rinland built its paths: Osmaria
already had a far greater proportion of bicycle owners. In fact, the prompt even states that bicycling is
already more common in Osmaria than in Rinland.
If Osmaria's population is already saturated with bicycle riders who are making short trips
without paths, building paths might make their rides safer or more pleasant, but it is unlikely to cause a
significant increase in the overall use of bicycles. There simply isn't a massive, untapped market of non-riders left to convert, unlike the situation in Rinland.
Why the other options are incorrect:- • The proportion of households that own motorized vehicles is very low in Osmaria but quite high in Rinland. If Osmaria has very few cars, people are likely already relying heavily on bicycles or walking. This actually mildly supports the idea that they don't have cars to fall back on, but it doesn't weaken the argument as effectively as knowing they already ride bikes at peak capacity.
- • In Osmaria there are opportunities to build bicycle paths that would make many popular short trips much easier for a person riding a bicycle. This strengthens the argument by showing that paths would be highly useful and effective in Osmaria.
- • A greater proportion of bicycle trips in Rinland than in Osmaria are made by people using a combination of bicycling and public transport. This is largely irrelevant. The focus of the argument is on "short trips" as a whole, regardless of whether they connect to a bus or train.
- • Most bicycle trips made in Rinland now use a bicycle path for at least part of their route. This shows that the bike paths in Rinland are successful and being used, which strengthens the idea that paths are a good way to facilitate riding.
Aprilhaa
In Rinland the use of bicycles for short trips increased greatly after the construction of a network of bicycle paths. This experience shows that in neighboring Osmaria, where bicycling is more common than in Rinland but where there are no bicycle paths, the use of bicycles would increase significantly if a network of bicycle paths were built.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument given?
• The proportion of households that own motorized vehicles is very low in Osmaria but quite high in Rinland.
• In Osmaria there are opportunities to build bicycle paths that would make many popular short trips much easier for a person riding a bicycle.
• A greater proportion of bicycle trips in Rinland than in Osmaria are made by people using a combination of bicycling and public transport.
• Before the construction of Rinland’s bicycle paths, bicycle owners made up a far greater proportion of the population in Osmaria than in Rinland.
• Most bicycle trips made in Rinland now use a bicycle path for at least part of their route.