Question 104·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 Many city planners argue that expanding urban bike-share networks is the most effective way to reduce automobile congestion. They point to ridership statistics from several major programs, noting that whenever a city adds docks and bicycles, the number of cars on downtown roads reliably declines.
Text 2 Transportation analyst Rina Delgado cautions that the relationship between bike-share expansion and lower traffic volume is not so direct. Studying five large cities, Delgado’s team found that most new bike-share trips came not from former drivers but from former public-transit riders and pedestrians. Delgado concludes that, while bike-share offers important health and recreational benefits, the data do not support the claim that simply adding more bikes meaningfully reduces car use.
Based on the texts, how does the perspective in Text 2 relate to the argument advanced in Text 1?
For cross-text relationship questions, first summarize each text’s main claim in your own words, paying attention to whether each author views the topic positively, negatively, or skeptically. Then decide whether the second text is mainly agreeing, adding detail, partially adjusting, or contradicting the first. Finally, scan the choices for words that match that relationship (like “supports,” “challenges,” or “refines”) and eliminate any answer that misstates what either text actually says or adds ideas (such as specific groups, causes, or motives) that don’t appear in the passages.
Hints
Identify Text 1’s main point
Focus on what city planners in Text 1 are claiming about the effect of expanding bike-share networks on car traffic. How strong is their claim?
Identify Text 2’s main point
Look closely at the study results in Text 2 and Delgado’s conclusion. Does she think adding more bikes clearly reduces car use, or does she say something different about the data?
Compare the attitudes of the two texts
Ask yourself: Does Text 2 agree with Text 1, partially adjust it, or push back against it? Pay attention to phrases like “not so direct” and “do not support the claim.”
Match your comparison to the answer choices
After you decide whether Text 2 is mainly supporting, qualifying, or opposing Text 1’s claim, choose the option whose description best fits that relationship.
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify Text 1’s main claim
In Text 1, city planners argue that expanding bike-share networks is “the most effective way to reduce automobile congestion.” They say that “whenever a city adds docks and bicycles, the number of cars on downtown roads reliably declines.” So Text 1 presents a strong, direct cause-and-effect link: more bike-share → fewer cars on the road.
Clarify Text 2’s main claim
Text 2 opens by saying the relationship “is not so direct.” Delgado’s study of five cities found that “most new bike-share trips came not from former drivers but from former public-transit riders and pedestrians.” She concludes that “the data do not support the claim that simply adding more bikes meaningfully reduces car use.” This directly questions how strong and reliable the effect described in Text 1 really is.
Decide how Text 2 relates to Text 1
Put the two views side by side:
- Text 1: Expanding bike-share does reliably cut car use and congestion.
- Text 2: The relationship is “not so direct” and the data “do not support” that claim.
So Text 2 is not agreeing, adding proof, or narrowing the claim; it is saying the evidence undercuts the strong conclusion in Text 1.
Match this relationship to the answer choices
Now compare that relationship with the options:
- Not refining a detail or a subset of expansions (so not A).
- Not offering supporting data; the data go the opposite way (so not B).
- Not dismissing planners’ expertise; it focuses on evidence, not who is “qualified” (so not C).
The only choice that correctly captures that Text 2 uses evidence to show the connection between bike-share growth and lower car use is weaker than Text 1 claims is D) Text 2 challenges Text 1 by presenting evidence that the presumed link between bike-share growth and decreased car use is weaker than Text 1 suggests.