The idea of building “New Towns” to absorb growth is frequently consid

Hi,

As explained by one of our friends above, this option is slightly on the difficult side.

It says it will divert residents from exciting cities. Which residents? Low income or high income? This thing is not clear.

Let's say this option meant Low income, in that case it would be good for the cities while the same is not true the other way round.

I hope that makes sense.

I thought 3 could be E.
Look at this period: Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income. The remaining taxpayers......

It seems that the tax base will lower, that some residents will go away and that it will be a concentration of low income groups....so why is it A and not E?

Moreover, could someone explain me the eigth question? Please, more passages like this!!!

Because if new towns were able to divert the residents from existing ones then the problem would have been solved.
"Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further"

Regards,
Appy

In the paragraph it says that the suburbs will tend to drive away high income citizens. But the option says it will drive away residents of the city. Now residents can include both low as well as high income. High income are small subset of residents. Hence cannot be use to justify the option. For eg: if we say people of New-York don't like football can be generalize it to say all the people of USA don't like football. Hence II is incorrect.

Hope the explanation clarifies your doubt.

Please give kudos if you like the explanation.

Makes perfect sense
FROM THE PASSAGE :- "Federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. In fact, our regulations specify virtually all the ingredients of the typical suburban community, with a bit of political rhetoric thrown in."

Essentially just a overrated suburb and not with an ounce of originality in, social concern or actual urban problem. American policymaker just take a suburban model, add some stupid political agenda and political speech about society and blah blah to it to it and then assumed/pretended that they created a new town.

Can someone please explain why Statement 2 in question 3 is incorrect?

Statement 2: The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas.

We are already given in the passage that

Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens

I think this means the same what option B is saying.

Please confirm.

3. According to the author, ill-considered New Towns will tend to weaken existing cities in which of the following ways?
II. The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas. This option would weaken existing city if it explicitly stated high income citizens instead of residents because residents could include low income citizens. Also other areas is not specified. Other areas could be another Urban city which will not make any difference.

Hi,

These lines answer your question.

Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income.

So, if they are unable to pay tax, it means "They will cause an erosion in the tax base of existing cities."

3. According to the author, ill-considered New Towns will tend to weaken existing cities in which of the following ways?
I. They will cause an erosion in the tax base of existing cities.
II. The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas.
III. They will increase the number of low-income residents in existing cities.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) I and II only
(D) II and III only
(E) I, II, and III


II. is not the answer as it would be sagacious to infer that, New Towns would not divert all the existing residents. Only high income residents who no longer consider that place matches their status would migrate to other cities.
III. Proportion and not the actual number of low income residents is going to increase, hence III can't be selected.

So A) is the answer.

Hi SaumyaMukh, junii, PrachiMaloo,

2. The author believes that New Towns are not being built where they are genuinely needed because

(A) the government offers developers incentives to build in other areas
(B) the promoters of New Town are motivated chiefly by self-interest
(C) few people want to live in areas where land is still cheap
(D) no studies have been done to determine the best locations
(E) federal regulations make construction in those areas less profitable

Explanation: can be inferred from the lines: "The promoters of New Towns so far in the United States have been developers, builders, and financial institutions. The main interest of these promoters is economic gain. Furthermore, federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. ", implying that the promoters of New Town are motivated chiefly by self-interest and do not consider social needs as European New Town plans do and will mostly encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.



7. It can be inferred from the passage that the author considers the present American New Town formula to be

(A) thoroughly considered
(B) insufficiently innovative
(C) potentially workable
(D) overly restrictive
(E) financially sound


Explanation : We can answer this using PoE, as other options are clearly not what's mentioned in the passage, thus the best answer would be (B). Option B can also be inferred from the lines: "Furthermore, federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. In fact, our regulations specify virtually all the ingredients of the typical suburban community, with a bit of political rhetoric thrown in.", implying that even though the plans have been thought upon too much, still are not considered workable.



8. The author of the passage is primarily concerned with

(A) arguing for a change in policy
(B) exploring the implications of novel idea
(C) comparing and contrasting two manifestations of the same phenomenon
(D) proposing a radically new solution to an old problem
(E) summarizing recent research on a topic

Explanation: Throughout the passage, author talks about the New Towns plans and how it is further and equally erroneously assumed that since European New Towns have been financially and socially successful, we can expect the same sorts of results in the United States. The author continues to argue the idea by mentioning the downsides and how the plan would not impact where it is genuinely needed and concludes the passage asking for a change in the policy. Thus A is the correct answer.
B is incorrect as the author is not exploring the implications of novel idea, instead the author is arguing something that was successful in Europe will probably not be so in the US.


For Question 5, please refer my previous reply here:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-idea-of-building-new-towns-to-absorb-growth-is-frequently-consid-56604.html#p2666856


Hope This Helps.
Thanks.

Hi,

If high income citizens move from the cities, the proportion of low income citizens would increase rather than the number.

Let's say we have 25 low income and 75 high income citizens. Proportion of Low income = 25/100 = 1/4.

But now, say 50 high income citizens moved away. Proportion of Low income = 25/50 = 1/2.

So, even if the low income citizens remain the same, we have their proportion increased and not the actual number.

I hope that makes sense.

The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas is not accurate ...

Per the passage -- its only a problem if financial well off people leave from existing cities

Per option II -- it doesn't say which kind of residents ...if it said "rich citizens" then option II is right ...but given it doesn't state that ...its plausible that the residents being discussed are poor ..

The passage does NOT comment on if poor people leave the city for another location ...

3. According to the author, ill-considered New Towns will tend to weaken existing cities in which of the following ways?
I. They will cause an erosion in the tax base of existing cities.
II. The will divert residents from existing cities to other areas.

"but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and"
means diverting residents. Why option II is incorrect then

Any idea why option C. I and II is incorrect in Question 3.
In the passage it clearly says:

Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income.

I would think high-income citizens are sub-set of the residents of the city.
Would like to see the official explanation from Manhattan on this.

Dear Experts AjiteshArun SajjadAhmad Abhi077, Kindly help with this question.
It is mentioned nowhere that suburbs are poor models of New Towns.

Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.
Above statement suggest suburbs alleviate some urban problems, thus E could be the answer.

kindly explain question number 5

5. The author’s tone in discussing “developers, builders, and financial institutions” (Highlighted) can best be described as

(A) critical
(B) pedantic
(C) evasive
(D) captious
(E) vitriolic

Explanation: The author discusses “developers, builders, and financial institutions”, when he talks about promoters of New Towns. Throughout the passage, the author can be seen critical of the New Towns and mentions that the main interest of these promoters is economic gain. Author's tone is not pedantic or precise, evasive. He can be seen criticizing the New Towns Projects, as he feels that since European New Towns have been financially and socially successful, we cannot expect the same sorts of results in the United States and any such assumptions are incorrect.

Hope This Helps.
Thanks.