SalahT
To reduce traffic congestion in the inner city, the mayor proposed a plan. He created an advertising campaign to encourage commuters from the suburbs to use public transportation rather than private cars to come into the city. If the plan did not show significant results in a four-month trial period, he implied he would raise tolls on the bridges and tunnels leading into the city by 50 percent. His plan is obviously working since subway ridership is up 11 percent this year.
Which of the following most weakens the mayor’s conclusion that his program has changed the habits of commuters?
A. Many drivers have found routes into the city that allow them to bypass the bridges and tunnels.
This strengthens the mayors argument that the congestion has decreased since a lot of by passes have been found out
B. A long-range construction project has closed two major arteries into the city from the suburbs.
This might gives us reason as of why there was an increase in the commuters of the subway and not decreasong the congestion of the city
C. New seat cushions on the subway, while easier to keep clean than the previous ones, are not as comfortable.
This is thoroughly out of context since this has no impact on the argument
D. The construction of a high-occupancy vehicle lane on one of the main roads leading into the city has cut ten minutes off the trip for high-occupancy vehicles.
This strengthens the mayors claim that congestion has decreased this strengthens rather than weakens
E. Most of the revenue raised from bridge and tunnel tolls has been allocated to public transportation.
Similar reasoning as C since this has no impact on the argument
Therefore IMO B