Q1 - Something must be done to ease

[agersh144]

Ok so I got this one wrong now i'm going to try to break it down.

Core is: Tons of traffic congestion (due to shift from traditional nearby shopping and work to distance shopping/commuting to work) > Something must be done.

I choose D (thinking that if we increase speed limit then we resolve the congestion) but the answer was E. The reason that D is wrong is that drivers who travel well below the maximum speed limit on major highways being fined would not necessarily reduce the congestion because there still a ton of cars driving a considerable distance which invariably clogs up the roads. However E would be strongly supported given the information in the stimulus because if businesses were encouraged to to locate closer to where their workers (who may also be its consumers) lived then each individual would drive less and thus less cars would be on the road reducing traffic flow and speed simultaneously solving issues of time and distance

[ohthatpatrick]

Pretty good analysis!

A couple things to consider, though.

1. This is an Inference question. Inference questions just give us a paragraph of facts and ask us which answer is most provable based on the facts. So we never try to find an argument core on Inference questions. There is no conclusion, even though this paragraph definitely COULD be organized as an argument the way you did.

But, you definitely understood the gist of the question stem was "how do we address the problem of traffic congestion?"

It seemed like your explanation for (D) was partly an explanation for (A) when you talked up about raising the speed limit?

I think (A) and (D) are both kinda crazy if we actually picture what's being described.

Traffic congestion = traffic jam.

Pretend you're driving in a traffic jam. You wish you could go faster, because it's taking FOREVER to get where you're going.

Would it solve the problem if suddenly all the street signs said 70mph instead of 55mph?

Of course not, because you're stuck in traffic! You can only go as fast as the car in front of you.

Would it solve the problem if a cop pulled you over and gave you a ticket for going under 55mph?

Of course not. You say to the cop, "How am I supposed to go 55mph in the midst of a traffic jam? The car in front of me is only creeping forward at 10mph!"

The only thing that's going to fix the problem and let you go faster is if we have more lanes or fewer cars on the road.

(E) is a step towards getting fewer cars on the road. And it reinforces the info we got about what contributed to creating this traffic problem: people used to work and shop locally and now they have to drive farther distances to get to those same destinations.

=== other answers ===
(B) this would just move the traffic congestion problem from highways to secondary roads.

(C) having MORE people in the suburbs would only ADD cars into the local traffic mix, thereby worsening the problem

Hope this helps.