According to Christopher Leo, reviewing Douglas Rae's book City

Question

According to Christopher Leo, reviewing Douglas Rae's book City: Urbanism and Its End, Rae draws on his experience as a city manager to argue that the most dramatic and direct contribution of automobiles to urban decline was to overwhelm city centers with traffic congestion, rather than to make urban residents' flight to the suburbs easier. Leo says this contradicts conventional wisdom among scholars of urbanism.

According to Leo, Rae's view that traffic congestion kills cities fails to notice that the most successful cities all suffer from serious congestion, while unsuccessful cities, persuaded by their engineers, build roads in vain, in many cases until there is no city center left. Leo writes: "If we could find one example of an obviously successful city—say London, New York, Tokyo, or Toronto-whose economy was harmed by excess traffic, the road engineers' argument might gain some credibility. But ordinary observation suggests that complaints about traffic and parking are not a major concern in those cities, which actually have serious traffic and parking problems—but are a constant refrain" in some other North American cities. In   one such city  , Leo writes, parking complaints that would be "considered laughable" in the Canadian city of Vancouver are "offered as reasons for not spending time in a downtown that is beset by urban decay."
   1 
 1. As represented in the passage, Leo's statements are most likely intended to indicate that in a particular North American city (see   highlighted   phrase), the primary factor discouraging some people from spending much time downtown is that

A) they have everything they need in the suburbs
B) the downtown area suffers from serious traffic congestion
C) it is too difficult to find a parking spot in the downtown area
D) the downtown area is too far from their homes in the suburbs
E) they find little, if anything, downtown attractive enough to outweigh perceived difficulties with parking

2 
 2. The primary purpose of the passage is to

A) describe two effects of automobiles on city centers
B) compare several major cities with regard to traffic congestion and parking problems
C) provide an account of one writer's response to an opinion ascribed to Rae concerning cities' decline
D) challenge one critic's view of Rae's claim regarding the role of
automobiles in urban decline
E) present evidence against the conventional view of scholars of urbanism regarding the influence of automobiles

3 
 3. If Leo's views as represented in the passage are correct, which of the following would, if true, most help explain why serious traffic and parking problems in certain cities have relatively little, if any, negative effect on those cities' economic success?

A) Some metropolitan areas are more successful than others in arranging traffic flow to eliminate or significantly reduce traffic and parking problems.
B) Some cities that are economically successful and succeed in solving their traffic-congestion problems become even more successful economically.
C) The economies of cities like London, New York, Tokyo, and Toronto are driven primarily by international trade that is little affected by traffic congestion.
D) The roads of New York and Toronto were built much more recently than those of London and Tokyo.
E) Many successful cities do not have traffic congestion or parking problems.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

You really have to flex your inference muscles for this one!

Leo's point is that there are successful cities that DO have serious traffic and parking problems. But the excess traffic does NOT apparently harm the economies of those cities, where "complaints about traffic and parking are not a major concern."

The city mentioned at the end (let's call it City X) is NOT successful -- its downtown is "beset by urban decay." Yes, people SAY that they don't visit the downtown area because of parking issues, but those issues would be considered LAUGHABLE in other successful cities.

In other words, the parking issues in City X are much less significant than the parking issues in London, New York, Tokyo, and others. And yet those cities -- the ones with much worse parking issues -- still have healthy economies.

The implication here is that those laughable or insignificant parking issues aren't the real problem, despite what people might say -- in reality, the "urban decay" is the problem. If the urban centers were more "attractive" and had more to offer, people would be willing to visit, even if that meant putting up with some parking and traffic headaches.

I hope that helps!

abhichatur · Answer

For Q2  the very first sentence in the RC tells us that Leo is reviewing Rae's work. Going forward as well you can see that Leo keeps talking about what Rae said. Hence the main point will be something about Leo critiquing Rae. That could be option C or D. Since the title of the book is about Urbanism and its end, and Leo does talk about stuff apart from Automobiles, it is option C.

For Q3 , what I did was option of elimination.

Q3. If Leo's views as represented in the passage are correct, which of the following would, if true, most help explain why serious traffic and parking problems in certain cities have relatively little, if any, negative effect on those cities' economic success?

See this part of the Passage:
According to Leo, Rae's view that traffic congestion kills cities fails to notice that the most successful cities all suffer from serious congestion, while unsuccessful cities, persuaded by their engineers, build roads in vain, in many cases until there is no city center left. Leo writes: "If we could find one example of an obviously successful city—say London, New York, Tokyo, or Toronto-whose economy was harmed by excess traffic, the road engineers' argument might gain some credibility.

A) Some metropolitan areas are more successful than others in arranging traffic flow to eliminate or significantly reduce traffic and parking problems.

Nothing like this is mentioned. In fact London, New York, Tokyo, or Toronto continue to struggle with issues

B) Some cities that are economically successful and succeed in solving their traffic-congestion problems become even more successful economically.

Nothing like this mentioned either. The struggle has continued.

C) The economies of cities like London, New York, Tokyo, and Toronto are driven primarily by international trade that is little affected by traffic congestion.

Could be the answer, since despite not fixing traffic this helps with improving economies.

D) The roads of New York and Toronto were built much more recently than those of London and Tokyo.

Doesnt tell us anything. Wouldnt matter for how traffic and parking problems affect the city.

E) Many successful cities do not have traffic congestion or parking problems.
Goes against the premise of the Question.

Hence C should be the answer. Hope that helps.

Freddy12 · Answer

GMATNinja   GMATNinja Two  MartyMurray  
Can you help with Q1? I chose (C) as it is mentioned in the passage - "parking complaints that would be "considered laughable" in the Canadian city of Vancouver are "offered as reasons for not spending time in a downtown"

KarishmaB · Answer

Question 3.

3. If Leo's views as represented in the passage are correct, which of the following would, if true, most help explain why serious traffic and parking problems in certain cities have relatively little, if any, negative effect on those cities' economic success?

A) Some metropolitan areas are more successful than others in arranging traffic flow to eliminate or significantly reduce traffic and parking problems. 
 B) Some cities that are economically successful and succeed in solving their traffic-congestion problems become even more successful economically. 
 C) The economies of cities like London, New York, Tokyo, and Toronto are driven primarily by international trade that is little affected by traffic congestion. 
 D) The roads of New York and Toronto were built much more recently than those of London and Tokyo. 
 E) Many successful cities do not have traffic congestion or parking problems.

Note the question stem - which of the following would, if true, most help explain why...
It is like a CR question. We could have new information in the correct option to help explain an observation.

What can explain why traffic problems may not affect the economy of a city?

A) Some metropolitan areas are more successful than others in arranging traffic flow to eliminate or significantly reduce traffic and parking problems.

Less or more problems in some areas are irrelevant. Point is why is bad traffic not affecting the economy of a city?

B) Some cities that are economically successful and succeed in solving their traffic-congestion problems become even more successful economically.

Doesn't explain why cities with bad traffic issues are still successful.

C) The economies of cities like London, New York, Tokyo, and Toronto are driven primarily by international trade that is little affected by traffic congestion.

Correct. Tells you that these cities economies are driven by international trade - buying and selling internationally. International clients don't care about traffic issues in the city. So the cities prosper inspite of traffic issues.

D) The roads of New York and Toronto were built much more recently than those of London and Tokyo.

No comparison between the cities is warranted.

E) Many successful cities do not have traffic congestion or parking problems.

Irrelevant. Why do the cities that DO have these problems still prosper?

Answer (C)

Dream009 · Answer

In Q1 why is the answer e and not c - like how to eliminate b/w those 2 options - any idea?

egmat · Answer

Dream009

Looking at your specific doubt about choosing between C and E - this is actually one of the trickier distinctions in RC questions! Let me help you see the key difference.

Option C suggests:  The parking problem is  real and serious 
 Option E suggests:  The parking problem is  perceived/exaggerated , and the real issue is downtown's lack of appeal

Key Evidence from the Passage:

Leo says these parking complaints would be  "considered laughable"  in Vancouver - this tells us the parking issues aren't actually serious 
 The downtown is described as  "beset by urban decay"  - this reveals the real problem 
 Successful cities have  "serious traffic and parking problems"  yet people still go there - proving that when downtown is attractive, people tolerate parking issues

Why C is Wrong: 
If parking were  truly  too difficult (option C), Leo wouldn't call the complaints "laughable." The word "laughable" indicates these complaints are exaggerated excuses, not legitimate problems.

Why E is Correct: 
Option E captures Leo's actual point: People  use  parking as an excuse, but the  primary factor  is that the decaying downtown lacks sufficient appeal. If it were attractive (like London or NYC), people would happily deal with parking difficulties.

Strategic Framework for "Primary Factor" Questions:  
When you see two close options, look for:
 
  Qualifier words  like "laughable" that reveal the author's attitude 
  Root cause vs. excuse  - Is the author suggesting one factor is just a cover for another? 
  Comparisons  - How do successful examples differ from unsuccessful ones?

In this case: Successful cities = bad parking but people still come → Unsuccessful cities = minor parking issues used as excuse → Real problem must be something else (urban decay/lack of appeal)

You can practice similar RC inference questions  here  (you'll find a lot of OG questions) - select Reading Comprehension under Verbal and choose Medium level questions to work on these subtle distinctions.

According to Christopher Leo, reviewing Douglas Rae's book City

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

According to Christopher Leo, reviewing Douglas Rae's book City

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards