Question 108·Hard·Inferences
During a pilot program in three mid-sized cities, transit planners reduced bus fares by 40% while simultaneously cutting average wait times by adding more buses to high-demand routes. Ridership increased sharply during off-peak hours but remained flat during weekday rush hours. Interviews with commuters indicated that many rush-hour riders valued predictable travel times over cost savings and were unwilling to switch from cars due to frequent delays caused by bottlenecks near downtown terminals. By the program’s end, planners shifted investment toward bus-only lanes rather than further fare reductions. These results most strongly suggest that the planners concluded that _____
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For inference “most logically completes the text” questions, anchor your choice in (1) the reported results and (2) the author’s final action or takeaway. Here, the key is the contrast between off-peak and rush-hour outcomes plus the planners’ shift toward bus-only lanes; the correct completion should explain that shift using only ideas clearly supported by the text while avoiding extreme, absolute, or speculative claims.
Hints
Use the final sentence as a clue
Look closely at the last sentence: by the end of the program, what change in investment did the planners make, and away from what other option?
Compare off-peak and rush-hour results
Think about how ridership changed during off-peak hours versus weekday rush hours after the fare cut and increased bus frequency. Which group did not respond much?
Focus on what rush-hour commuters say they care about
According to the interviews, what matters more to many rush-hour commuters: saving money or having predictable, delay-free travel times?
Ask why bus-only lanes would help
How would dedicated bus-only lanes affect the delays near downtown terminals that commuters complained about? Which choice best captures that reasoning as a conclusion the planners drew?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what the planners changed and what happened
The passage says that during the pilot program, planners reduced bus fares by 40% and added more buses to cut wait times. The result: ridership increased sharply during off-peak hours but remained flat during weekday rush hours. This means those changes did not bring more rush-hour car commuters onto buses.
Pay attention to what commuters said in interviews
Interviews with commuters showed that many valued predictable travel times over cost savings and were unwilling to switch from cars because of frequent delays near downtown terminals. This indicates that, for rush-hour commuters, reliability matters more than price.
Connect interviews and the final decision
By the program’s end, planners shifted investment toward bus-only lanes rather than further fare reductions. Bus-only lanes help buses avoid traffic bottlenecks, which would improve travel-time reliability—directly targeting the problem commuters described.
Select the option that matches the planners’ implied conclusion
Because weekday rush-hour ridership stayed flat even after the fare cut and shorter waits, and because commuters emphasized delays and predictability, the strongest supported conclusion is that improving travel-time reliability with dedicated bus-only lanes is more likely than additional fare cuts to entice weekday rush-hour car commuters to switch to buses.