A question about a study tests what you can conclude from what changed and what happened. Read what the blank asks, then name what changed and how each group or time period responded. If two things changed together, you can’t tell which caused the result from that trial alone. Then link what people say to the final decision, and don’t claim more than the evidence shows. Wrong choices often make claims broader or more certain than the study supports.
Hints
- Hint 1
Find the result for each time period. How did ridership change during off-peak hours and weekday rush hours?
- Hint 2
Fares and wait times changed at the same time. Ask what the pilot can tell you about either change on its own.
- Hint 3
In the commuter interviews, look for what matters when choosing a car or a bus. How does that help explain the planners’ final investment decision?
Step-by-step
Trace the results to the policy shift
Step 1Separate the two time periods
Planners reduced bus fares by 40% while simultaneously cutting average wait times. How did riders respond? Ridership rose off-peak but remained flat during weekday rush hours, so the two time periods showed different results. The blank asks what planners concluded, so we need to connect those results to their later decision.
- Step 2
Limit what the pilot can show
Can we say only one change caused the off-peak rise? The fare cuts and shorter waits happened simultaneously, so the pilot didn’t test either change on its own. The increase could come from cheaper fares, shorter waits, or both; it can’t show that either change had no effect.
- Step 3
Find the remaining rush-hour barrier
What still kept rush-hour commuters in cars? Many valued predictable travel times over cost savings and described frequent delays caused by bottlenecks near downtown terminals. Shorter waits mean less time before boarding, but they don’t necessarily make the trip itself predictable. Reliability was still a barrier for these commuters, which explains why the improvements already made hadn’t persuaded them to switch.
- Step 4
Explain the investment shift
Why did planners choose bus-only lanes rather than further fare reductions? Those lanes target the delay problem commuters described, while another discount targets cost, which these commuters valued less. The phrase more likely than additional fare cuts makes the claim a comparison, not a guarantee that every driver will switch. The choice also names weekday rush-hour car commuters, so the claim stays about the commuters described in the text. Choice C.