Jonathan: Have you heard about this new proposed development project?

(A) changes in the traffic light patterns could mitigate the effect of the development : We are we talking about mitigation : Clearly out of scope

(B) the traffic at the time of day Daria sits at the coffee shop represents a typical level : Okay fine.

(C) residents of apartment complexes usually own at least one car per apartment : Even if they dont doesnt impact the reasoning.

(D) Jonathan's understanding of the impact of fumes and congestion on the quality of life downtown is reasonably accurate : We are not concerned about Jonathan.

(E) large numbers are useful talking points for political opponents of development because : Out of scope.
they are easily misinterpreted

Only viable option is (B)

Jonathan: Have you heard about this new proposed development project? They want to build a 950-unit apartment complex along the waterfront. That means that over 1,000 additional
vehicles will be passing through the main downtown intersection each day, which will increase fumes and congestion to unacceptable levels.

Daria: Is that really such a large increase? When I'm sitting at the downtown coffee shop, I see at least 50 vehicles go through that intersection every time the light changes. Assuming
the light changes every three minutes, that's 1,000 vehicles passing through every hour.

Daria's argument relies on the assumption that


(A) changes in the traffic light patterns could mitigate the effect of the development
-incorrect as it has no relation with development

(B) the traffic at the time of day Daria sits at the coffee shop represents a typical level
Correct- it represents the the assumption that daria holds the average traffic passing as the sample of whole traffic

(C) residents of apartment complexes usually own at least one car per apartment
incorrect -Irrelevant as nothing is provided like that

(D) Jonathan's understanding of the impact of fumes and congestion on the quality of life downtown is reasonably accurate
- irrelevant to asked question

(E) large numbers are useful talking points for political opponents of development because
they are easily misinterpreted
-Irrelevant

In my opinion, the conclusion is that 1000 cars per hour are represented in this intersection instead of 1000 cars per day.

So the Pre thinking process is this change of pattern of Daria is the normal pattern throughout the day.

Process of Eliminate:

Out of scope.


Look good, Keep it.


Not related


Nearly but it isn't the conclusion.



Out of scope.

Hope it correct and help.

Answer is B, Because if we negate this answer choice then the argument breaks down.

Official Explanation

Answer: B

This is an assumption question. Jonathan points out an increase in traffic through a major intersection and complains about a likely increase in fumes and congestion. Daria's response, though it isn't stated explicitly, is that 1,000 vehicles per day isn't that much of an increase. Her evidence: She sees enough vehicles go through the intersection to suggest that 1,000 is a typical hour. The underlying assumption is that her experience is, in fact, typical--that 1,000 cars usually go through the intersection per hour. That may suggest that the increase in congestion and fumes is slight, on a percent increase basis.

(A) Daria isn't considering the pattern of the traffic light, just the vehicle volume.

(B) This is correct. This is her assumption – that 50 vehicles per three minutes is typical. If it is, she's right to question Jonathan's concern. If it is unusually high, her argument is weak.

(C) This is something like an assumption of Jonathan's argument, not of Daria's.

(D) Daria is questioning Jonathan's assessment, not agreeing with it, as this choice would suggest.

(E) This is far outside of the scope, which is specific to the number of cars passing through the intersection over various periods of time.