A moderately large city is redesigning its central downtown area and

Little surprised that D is not the correct answer
C says other cities which took measures to make downtown accessible had business there register growth, but nowhere does it say what the measures were and if those were the same as the measures taken by our city
It is very possible that the measures taken by other cities were different ( eg. many freeways, cycle lanes and skywalks build to bring walkers and cyclists from the outskirts) and these measures worked.
But from that we cannot conclude the specific measures taken by our city will work, can we?

First, I would like to address why this "less worse" choice can be the answer, whereas the answer format "research of other cities/countries/communities shows a similar effect ..." is generally cast out.



Argument of the kind is called inductive argument, which is never 100% valid. However, to evaluate an induction, one has to consider whether the argument is strong, and in this case whether the instances raised are typical.

If you care to go back and review all the previous eliminated choices, you might figure that those choices have never mentioned other similar cities/countires/communities. Here choice (C) clearly shows the intent to indicate similarity by saying other moderately sized cities, the only property we know about the city in question from the stem. Choice (C) is not perfect, but it gets the job done.


Then, I am on about why (D) is absolutely wrong. With all due respect, the answer is not as the expert explained below. The problem is not in the least subtle.



(D) reads, I quote,
If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.

"than would otherwise be". Let's read the sentence again, and see what exactly "the otherwise" means. The negation of "the restrictions are rigorously enforced" is "the restrictions are not rigorously enforced". (D) is comparing the scenario where the plan is rigorously enforced with the alternative where the plan is otherwise (not so rigorously) enforced. Keep this in mind for a moment.

In the argument, the author are trying to convince that the plan can reduce #of vehicles and increase #of pedestrains, and then somehow the business will be better off. The issue in question is that whether and why the plan can beneifit downtown businesses. We are not even sure about the plan itself, let alone the implementation. We are by no means discussing how to execute the plan. I couldn't care less whether the restrictions are rigorously enforced or not. The choice (D) is simply out of scope.

Hope you find my reasoning helpful!

Statement says: attracting more pleasant to move around--> workers and shoppers --> downtown business

When I look for the options, Can the following scope be considered ?
Optio1: attracting more pleasant to move around --> PEOPLE ( skaters, riders, other drivers) --> downtown business
(not workers and shoppers: but other people who may or may not go for shopping ) – so this is OUT OF SCOPE?

Option2: attracting more pleasant to move around --> workers and shoppers
these workers and shoppers MAY OR MAY NOT BUY . They may not contribute in business -this can still be considered in SCOPE because it is still in line of reasoning?

Option3: attracting tourism ( other activities than pleasant to move around in) --> workers and shoppers--> downtown business-
( attract workers and shoppers for shopping but by other activities such as parties, or tourism)- this statement would also be OUT OF SCOPE?

Please give your suggestion and expert opinion VeritasKarishma GMATNinja AjiteshArun DavidTutorexamPAL AnishPassiTGC

I am not sure what your question is. From whatever I have understood, I can say that 1 and 3 mentioned by you are irrelevant to the argument.

The aim is to attract more 'workers and shoppers' so more people who will work at these businesses and more people who will shop at these businesses. Whether the plan is successful in attracting tourists or children who want to play there is irrelevant. We need to evaluate whether the goal (attract more workers and shoppers) will be achieved.

MartyTargetTestPrep VeritasKarishma
Greetings,
In the spirit of incessantly fanning the flames of disagreement on this, arguably controversial, post, I have a query. Naturally, it's about D not being the right answer choice.

(D) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.

Say the lane restrictions are implemented, but not rigorously enforced, does option D not imply that there would still be an increase? The "than otherwise would be" implies that the rigorous enforcement of the restrictions would bring about an even greater increase in footfall at the downtown area than the increase that would arise from the unrigorous enforcement of the restrictions.
I agree that we have no idea how minuscule or immense the increase will be, but it is an increase all the same. Does this not support the argument in the prompt?

The fact of the matter is that (D) says nothing about an increase.

Presumably, people are already "attracted to downtown businesses." So, attracting more people than otherwise would be attracted could result in a decrease, an increase, or no change in the number of people attracted if the proposed lane restrictions are implemented.

In other words, we don't know what the effect of implementing the lane restrictions will be. Maybe implementing the restrictions will cause a decrease, in which case rigorously enforcing the restrictions could merely mitigate the decrease. In that case, more people than otherwise would be attracted would mean not as much of a decrease as there might otherwise have been.

You read into (D) something that it does not actually say.

chiranjeev VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Can you please help me clear my doubt?
Can we say that every strengthener ques. is an arg.?
Also, Is my understanding below is correct for this ques.?
Premise = 2nd statement & Conclusion = 1st statement

KanikaG16

I don't understand "arg". Do you mean argument? Everything above the question stem is the given argument.
This question gives you a plan. In these questions, you need to focus on the plan and its aim (which acts as your conclusion) You need to strengthen the success of the plan.

Plan: reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks and increase those for bicycles and pedestrians.

Aim: The intent is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in.

You need to add something that will increase the probability that the plan will attract more workers and shoppers by making downtown easier to reach and more pleasant to move around in.

I am not perfectly sure about C as it states that correlation = causation. The conclusion seems to proof a causation. In this similar question created by MGMAT answer D is wrong because of a correlation = causation mistake.

MGMAT Q:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/officials-of ... 12027.html

GMATNinja and others, please help to explain

Cheers
Rudolf

AndrewN, I did get this question right but like a lot of people, I am still not totally convinced as to why C is better than D. Your take on this?

Hello, kntombat. I am playing catch-up after a busy day and a day-and-a-half power outage, so pardon the delay. I did not think about this one too much before I also chose (C). There are a few caution signs in the latter that you simply should not ignore, as well as some plusses to (C) that are easy to overlook.


First off, notice that the question does NOT ask us to choose the one and only answer that will lead to the success of the plan, just the one that would most strongly support the prediction.


I spend a lot of time in my CR posts breaking down the qualifying language of answer choices: some, significant, and, here, thrive. We have our target group, walkers and cyclists, our target area, downtown, and our target outcome, businesses began to thrive. This is the GMAT™ bending backwards to over-qualify an otherwise correlated but less certain answer. If we were told only that the businesses began to see an increase in revenue or something similarly vague, then this answer would be little better than (D).


There are two problems as I see it with this one. The first is a fatal flaw: the entire answer is based on a conditional. We have no guarantee or even assurance that such enforcement measures will be taken. Sure, I like rigorously, but the overarching frame dampens its impact. Then, although the passage does state that the goal of the plan is to attract more workers and shoppers to downtown businesses, and this answer touches on such a possibility, more people... than [there] would otherwise be could refer to just two additional people. We want something less like some and more like a significant number. Between thriving businesses in (C)—without a conditional—and a nebulous more here, we should appreciate the message the GMAT™ gods are hoping to send us.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about this one. When CR clicks, it brings a joy similar to cracking a difficult Quant question.

- Andrew

This is a Strengthen question: we're looking for something that makes the plan seem likely to succeed

If we have other examples of similar plans working, doesn't that make us more confident of this plan?

Or will we we have more confidence in something that has never been tried before? (No, we won't)

It's true that correlation is not causation, but correlation COULD mean causation

When we have multiple examples of correlation, the probability that these were all coincidence reduces.
It would be too much of a coincidence that the number shoppers and walkers just happened to increase in other cities that implemented similar plans

Yes, there could be other reasons why walkers and workers increased in those other cities -- but it's definitely possible that the traffic restrictions were responsible

Which brings us back to the fact that this is a Strengthen question.
We're not looking for foolproof evidence that the plan will definitely work

And C is the best of the answer choices

Posted from my mobile device

For experts and other folks who are saying D can't be correct because it doesn't mean its actually being implemented - isn't additional info in options taken as absolute truths in strengthen questions? If you answer no, it will make this situation and asking this question on the exam a controversy. Who decides the right answers for CR and why should we take that as absolute truths? Some answers are straightforward and some answers are cooked up stories that require A->B->C thinking i.e. too much overthinking

D does not contain any new information
D is just speculation/reasoning about what is likely to happen. There are no new facts

Posted from my mobile device

I just wanted to add my 2 cents as to why I eliminated D which I haven't seen in the responses so far (or may have erroneously missed.
The plan has 2 objectives and the action plan for the two are-
1. Making downtown easier to reach - increase lanes for bicycles and pedestrians
2. Making downtown more pleasant to move around in - reduce the number of lanes for automobiles and trucks
It is not one objective only that it aims to achieve but both. Now D talks about lane restrictions being enforced on drivers thereby improving the chances of people visiting. But this success is hinging on one element of the plan only, lanes for cars and trucks and adherence to this objective. No mention is made of the ease in moving around and impact of increase in lanes for bicycles etc and also implies it is the overload of cars in the lanes that is limiting people from visiting. There is no mention of accessibility and thus D is not correct since it addresses 1/2 elements of the plan.

(A) People who make a habit of walking or bicycling whenever feasible derive significant health benefits from doing so.
THis is thoroughly out of context and doesn't impact the passage the slightest

(B) Most people who prefer to shop at suburban malls instead of downtown urban areas do so because parking is easier and cheaper at the former.
parking was never in the equation and the lane reduction might or might not affect the parking therefore out

(C) In other moderately sized cities where measures were taken to make downtowns more accessible for walkers and cyclists, downtown businesses began to thrive.
This exactly what we were looking therefore let us hang on to it

(D) If the proposed lane restrictions on drivers are rigorously enforced, more people will likely be attracted to downtown businesses than would otherwise be.
We don't have any information about the cyclists and walkers therefore out

(E) Most people who own and frequently ride bicycles for recreational purposes live at a significant distance from downtown urban areas.
This definitely weakens since the cyclists never come to place in the first place will definitely will not drive buisness

Therefore IMO C

First off, I hope you don't mind, I quoted this post in my article on how to handle analogies in CR


1.


Can you or someone else please share such questions with me? I'd be really interested to see the inconsistency.


2.


I agree with you completely. Can we infer that the measure in one state would have a similar impact in another? Certainly not. However, are we looking for an inference here? Are we looking for surety?

What do you understand by this phrase: "most strongly support the prediction"?

Is supporting the prediction the same as confirming the prediction? No, right?


3.


I do not see the correct answer choice as a bad one. Does it confirm the prediction? No. But it doesn't need to. It just needs to support it. And it does that well enough. In fact, in most strengthen/ weaken questions, the correct answer choice does not confirm or destroy the argument.

I have explained why C is correct in this question in more detail in this post.

I have taken some more CR examples that deal with analogies in this article: https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-to-handl ... 70572.html. The article talks about why we do not need a gaurantee, and why (at least in my opinion) there actually isn't any inconsistency across official questions.