BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Traffic congestion

Expert replies
by g000fy » Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:05 am
Something must be done to ease traffic congestion. In traditional small towns, people used to work and shop in the same town in which they lived, but now that stores and workplaces are located far away from residential areas, people cannot avoid travelling long distances each day. Traffic congestion is so heavy on all roads that, even on major highways, the maximum speed averages only 35 miles per hour.

Which one of the following proposals is most supported by the statements above?
(A) The maximum speed limit on major highways should be increased.
(B) People who now travel on major highways should be encouraged to travel on secondary roads instead.
(C) Residents of the remaining traditional small towns should be encouraged to move to the suburbs.
(D) Drivers who travel well below the maximum speed limit on major highways should be fined.
(E) New businesses should be encouraged to locate closer to where their workers would live.

Source - Aristotle CR / LSAT

OA E
Last edited by g000fy on Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by lokesh r » Thu Oct 07, 2010 1:41 pm
IMO E.

Argument sounds as though it is trying to criticize new businesses by saying 'Workplaces now are located far away from residential areas'.
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:19 pm
g000fy wrote:Something must be done to ease traffic congestion. In traditional small towns, people used to work and shop in the same town in which they lived, but now that stores and workplaces are located far away from residential areas, people cannot avoid travelling long distances each day. Traffic congestion is so heavy on all roads that, even on major highways, the maximum speed averages only 35 miles per hour.

Which one of the following proposals is most supported by the statements above?
(A) The maximum speed limit on major highways should be increased.
(B) People who now travel on major highways should be encouraged to travel on secondary roads instead.
(C) Residents of the remaining traditional small towns should be encouraged to move to the suburbs.
(D) Drivers who travel well below the maximum speed limit on major highways should be fined.
(E) New businesses should be encouraged to locate closer to where their workers would live.

Source - Aristotle CR / 1000CR
E.
before they used to go to work and shop at stores nearby their office now the stores were moved far away or their office were ( moved) far away thus they have to drive to work and drive to the stores to buy stuff... => more vihicles on the road=> traffic congestion....
solution... moved all they back together then they can drive to office and buy stuff right at the stores nearby the office
E does that
Join the discussion

by Testluv » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:00 am
The above poster's reasoning is sound.

The stimulus describes a problem while the question wants you to understand what would be a good proposal/solution to fix this problem. Whenever an argument describes a problem, make sure you understand it well. If the stimulus then advances a solution to the problem (that didn't happen here--instead we had to select a viable solution to the problem), then be sure to check to see whether every head of the problem is accounted for in the solution. An aspect of the problem that the solution doesn't account for will be a good way to predict a weakener in a weaken question that describes a problem + plan.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Join the discussion

by g000fy » Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:59 am
Thanks Testluv

OA updated
Join the discussion