Q17 - In order to relieve traffic

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Explain a Result

Stimulus Breakdown:
The city of Gastner, in order to relieve traffic congestion, built a new highway linking several suburbs with the down town area. However, instead of relieving traffic, for residents of the downtown area commute times actually increased.

Answer Anticipation:
How could the new highway increase commute times? If the suburbs were now linked to the downtown area, it seems reasonable that there would be more traffic heading downtown for events, work, and more.

Correct Answer:
(E)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) is out of scope. What matters is whether there's a change in the number of drivers or the conditions they drive in that would increase commute times. The percentage of those who work in the downtown area commute in from the suburbs doesn't provide a stimulus for the increased commute times.

(B) is out of scope. There's nothing here about a change for drivers in the downtown area.

(C) is out of scope. New stoplights in the suburban neighborhoods doesn't seem likely to increase downtown commute times.

(D) makes the situation more unclear. New roads and a new freeway might indicate reduced commute time. The right answer should provide a negative associated with the new freeway. This could be seen as a positive.

(E) is correct. This would increase the number of drivers in the downtown area and could explain increased commute times.

Takeaway/Pattern: Reasoning Structure: Comparison & Causation

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

Question Type:
Ex
(B) is out of scope. There's nothing here about a change for drivers in the downtown area.

(C) is out of scope. New stoplights in the suburban neighborhoods doesn't seem likely to increase downtown commute times.

I think for "C" new stop lights (lol during the test I blanked out and did not realize it was traffic lights) would actually help explain the argument because now cars are stuck in red lights more, increasing commute time. This was how I read "C" intially and chose it because I thought it was saying more red lights were being built; however, I think the reason why "C" is wrong was because they said upgraded with new stop lights and not installed[[i]/i] new stop lights so it seems there always were these red lights but now they are newer (e.g. LED lights now) and not fresh new lights. Would this be a fair interpretation for why "C" is wrong because I think interpreting it as new red lights would explain why commute times take longer : Cars are now stuck at red lights more often

[vstoever]

Question Type:
Ex
(B) is out of scope. There's nothing here about a change for drivers in the downtown area.

(C) is out of scope. New stoplights in the suburban neighborhoods doesn't seem likely to increase downtown commute times.

I think for "C" new stop lights (lol during the test I blanked out and did not realize it was traffic lights) would actually help explain the argument because now cars are stuck in red lights more, increasing commute time. This was how I read "C" intially and chose it because I thought it was saying more red lights were being built; however, I think the reason why "C" is wrong was because they said upgraded with new stop lights and not installed[[i]/i] new stop lights so it seems there always were these red lights but now they are newer (e.g. LED lights now) and not fresh new lights. Would this be a fair interpretation for why "C" is wrong because I think interpreting it as new red lights would explain why commute times take longer : Cars are now stuck at red lights more often

I got this wrong but I think C is wrong because C is about new stoplight on suburban roads whereas the argument was about why commute time for workers IN downtown increased not those on suburban roads. Only E explains why commute within the downtown area increased.

[lunazhuyu]

I don't understand why E is correct... does E implying because of the new highway there are more people commuting now, causing the commute time increase?

Any thoughts? Thanks in advence.

[AyakiK696]

I ended up not choosing E for this question, because I thought it was a premise-booster... Also, I still don't really understand why A and B are wrong? Would someone please be able to help me with this...? Thank you!

[christine.defenbaugh]

If (E) had simply said that traffic was congested in downtown, that would be restating something we already know. But (E) doesn't say that - it says that there's now MORE congestion. It got worse! That's totally new information that we did not have before.

You have to pay careful attention to the difference between an absolute statement (There's congestion) and a relative/comparative one (There's now MORE congestion).

If there's MORE congestion on part of my route to work (a change), that could explain why my commute time goes up (a change).

Since we have to explain a change in commute time - I.e., not just that it's long, but that it got LONGER - then we need an explanation that is itself something that changed. Neither (A) nor (B) give me anything that *changed* after putting in the new highway. Most downtown-workers were commuting from the suburbs (A) even before the highway. That doesn't explain why the commute got *worse*. And if the highway is more convenient for some suburbs than others, that still doesn't give any good reason why the commute got *longer* with the new highway in place.

As for an earlier question about (C) - this might just be replacement stoplights, in which case, there's no good reason they'd make a difference to the commute. But even if these were brand new stoplights, on streets that had never had stoplights before, that still wouldn't explain the commute. There's a road by my parents place in a Texas suburb that was an absolute traffic DISASTER when it had no stoplights. People weren't sure who had the right-of-way, people went through the crossings one at a time.... it was just awful. Once they put in stoplights, though, traffic went SO smoothly. It was amazing! Stoplights are an organizational feature for traffic, not necessarily an automatic slowdown - watch the assumptions you bring in with you!

[ShuqiM728]

Just to add some of my thoughts about D: I would say this is wrong because it confuses the timeframe of "being built" with "opned" (which stated in the stimulus).

[ZIYAOW681]

I eliminated D because the increased commute time happened after the opening of new highway, while things of D happened before then.

[JohnZ880]

Gotta love the modern lsat. They thrive off of making questions hard by employing confusing grammatical constructions. I got the question right, but was unsure if the workers were those who work downtown in general or those who live downtown.