A question about two texts tests whether you can tell how one writer would respond to another’s claim. Use the question to find who answers whom, then sum up the claim and its reason. Read the responding writer’s evidence to decide whether they reject the claim, limit it, or take it further. For a claim about cause and effect, check what explains the result. Wrong choices can take the right position for a reason that the writer never gives.
Hints
- Hint 1
The question asks for Ortiz’s response to the planners. Find the planners’ prediction about added highway space, then look for Ortiz’s evidence about new highways.
- Hint 2
Compare each writer’s cause and effect. What do the planners expect added space to change, and what does Ortiz say happens when driving feels easier?
Step-by-step
Claim, response, and reason
Step 1Find who answers whom
Read Ortiz (Text 2) and the planners’ claim in Text 1 in the question: Ortiz is answering the planners. What do they predict? They expect the frequency and duration of traffic jams will decline because more highway space is available. Added space should mean fewer and shorter jams.
- Step 2
Explain the study results
The studies Ortiz cites show that newly constructed highways became congested within months. Why didn't the extra space keep jams away? When driving felt easier, people took trips they had previously avoided, a pattern called induced demand. Adding room can also add vehicles, so the amount of traffic doesn't stay fixed. More space alone doesn't guarantee lasting relief, because new trips can fill that space.
- Step 3
Name Ortiz’s response
Would Ortiz accept the claim that expansion is the most reliable way to reduce traffic congestion? He would reject it as a reliable rule, using the congestion on new highways as evidence. The responses about higher fuel taxes, insufficient public transit, and high financial cost all rely on reasons Ortiz never gives.
- Step 4
Check the wording and reason
The wording can ultimately describes a possible result, not a guaranteed one. What explains that result? The phrase encourages additional driving matches more people choose to make trips they previously avoided, which gives Ortiz’s reason congestion can continue after expansion. Choice A.