Question 83·Medium·Cross-Text Connections
Text 1 Urban planner Maya Ghosh evaluated the rollout of an all-night bus network in Harbor City. In the first two months after the launch, hourly ridership doubled and weekend car counts on major corridors fell by 12 percent between midnight and 4 a.m. Ghosh concludes that extending transit hours is an efficient way to reduce urban congestion.
Text 2 Transportation economist Rafael Mora cautions that assessments limited to off-peak windows can misstate a system's overall effect on congestion. Analyzing similar programs in three metropolitan areas, he found that initial late-night traffic declines were later offset by increased daytime volume due to induced demand: easier travel encouraged additional trips overall. Mora recommends tracking citywide vehicle kilometers traveled and average travel times across several months before judging net congestion impacts.
Based on the texts, how would Mora (Text 2) most likely respond to Ghosh's conclusion (Text 1)?
For cross-text connection questions, first quickly summarize each text’s main claim in your own words, then ask how the second author would likely react to the first: Would they agree, partially agree, or criticize, and on what specific grounds? Pay attention to key contrast phrases (like "cautions that" or "however") and to scope words (off-peak vs. citywide, short-term vs. several months). Before looking at the choices, predict the general kind of response the second author would give; then choose the option that best captures that relationship and directly reflects details from the second text, eliminating any choices that introduce new ideas not supported by the passage.
Hints
Clarify what each person is doing
First, put into your own words what Ghosh is claiming based on her data, and then what Mora is worried about in his analysis. Focus especially on how broad or narrow their measurements are.
Focus on key phrases in Text 2
Reread the sentence that begins "Transportation economist Rafael Mora cautions..." and the one that starts "Mora recommends tracking...". What do these sentences say about which time periods and which kinds of data should be used?
Compare scope and time frame
Ask yourself: Is Mora satisfied with short-term, late-night results on a few roads, or does he want a different kind of evidence? Which choice best reflects his view of how congestion should be evaluated overall?
Step-by-step Explanation
Summarize Ghosh’s conclusion (Text 1)
First, restate what Ghosh claims.
- She observes that after the all-night bus network starts, hourly ridership doubles and late-night car counts fall by 12% between midnight and 4 a.m.
- From this, she concludes that extending transit hours is an efficient way to reduce urban congestion.
So her argument is: late-night buses → fewer late-night cars → congestion is reduced overall.
Understand Mora’s main concern (Text 2)
Now look closely at what Mora says.
- He "cautions that assessments limited to off-peak windows can misstate a system's overall effect on congestion" — he is worried about conclusions based only on certain times (like late night).
- In his research, initial late-night traffic declines were later offset by increased daytime traffic because of induced demand (easier travel led to more trips overall).
- He "recommends tracking citywide vehicle kilometers traveled and average travel times across several months" before judging the net effect on congestion.
So Mora’s key ideas are: limited-time-window data can be misleading, induced demand can cancel out early improvements, and evaluations should be citywide and long-term.
Predict how Mora would respond to Ghosh
Compare Ghosh’s reasoning with Mora’s concerns.
- Ghosh bases her conclusion on two months of data and only midnight–4 a.m. car counts on major corridors.
- Mora explicitly warns that off-peak-only assessments can misstate the overall effect.
- He also insists on looking at citywide measures over several months because of induced demand.
So Mora would not simply accept Ghosh’s conclusion; he would warn that her evidence is too narrow (only late-night, short-term, limited locations) and would urge a broader, longer-term evaluation that accounts for induced demand.
Match the prediction to the answer choices
Now compare your prediction to the choices:
- The choice claiming Mora would treat any reduction in car traffic as proof of reduced congestion across all time periods contradicts his warning about off-peak-only assessments and induced demand.
- The choice claiming Mora would eliminate the program outright goes beyond the text: Mora calls for better measurement before judging net impacts.
- The choice about unpaid fares introduces a new idea not mentioned in Text 2.
- The remaining choice matches Mora’s caution about narrow late-night metrics and his recommendation to evaluate citywide, long-term patterns to account for induced demand.
Therefore, the correct answer is: He would caution that focusing only on late-night metrics may overstate congestion reductions and would advise assessing citywide, long-term travel patterns to account for induced demand.