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.
chrtpmdr wrote:
Sometimes I hate CR
I can swear that I've seen tons of other questions where the answer format "research from other cities/countries/communities shows that XYZ had a similar effect ..." was classified as out of the scope, yet in this question it is the prefered answer choice again.
Probably could argue hours about this but to me the OA is to ambigous and out of the scope to be the correct answer choice. Imagine that City X is in California while City Y is in Alaska, can we inference that the measure in California would have similar impact as in Alaska? Probably not.
Really hard to see what they want sometimes on CR, feels like sometimes X and sometimes Y.
In general I feel that the CR format of "choose the best out of the worst" is not really a good question format.
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.
VeritasKarishma wrote:
The problem with (D) is very subtle.
Take a simpler example.
Me: I want to lose 10 pounds.
Dietician: I am giving you this diet chart.
Will I lose 10 pounds?
A: Other people who were GIVEN this diet chart lost 10 pounds.
B: If you FOLLOW this diet strictly, you will lose 10 pounds.
One has to predict whether I will lose 10 pounds. What helps in saying whether I will or not? Does A help or B help?
All one knows is that I got the diet chart. If other people who got the diet chart lost pounds, it does make it more likely that I will lose too. So A helps.
Does one know whether I will follow the diet chart strictly? No. One needs more information for that to help.
Though I admit, this is a tough one. I know that if situations are comparable, a success story of another town is a strengthener for a success story here so (C) certainly helps.
On the other hand, I am not sure how much leeway is left for the drivers when one reduces the number of lanes. But one is not allowed to question the
OG answers hence there is some learning here.
Aruni1991 wrote:
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?
(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!