Question 117·Hard·Inferences
A recent proposal by the city council to ban personal automobiles from the downtown core and replace them with a fleet of free electric shuttles aims to decrease pollution and improve pedestrian safety. Critics, however, point out that the council has not budgeted for either an expansion of the shuttle network or upgrades to the existing charging infrastructure. Without these investments, the critics argue, the shuttle system may be too limited or unreliable to replace many car trips, and the proposal could end up ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For SAT sentence-completion inference questions, first read the entire mini-passage and cover the answer choices. Paraphrase what logically belongs in the blank (for example: “a negative, unintended consequence that makes the plan backfire because of X”). Then check each option for (1) correct tone, (2) tight logical connection to the specific cause mentioned just before the blank, and (3) alignment with the stated goals or main themes. Eliminate choices that introduce new topics or require extra assumptions not supported by the text, and choose the option with the cleanest cause-and-effect.
Hints
Identify the proposal’s main goals
Look back at what the city council wants the plan to achieve. What two improvements do they hope for in the downtown core?
Focus on the critics’ reasoning
The critics mention specific things that have not been budgeted for. Ask yourself: if the shuttle network stays small and charging is limited, how might that affect how people travel?
Match tone and direction
The phrase "Without these investments, the proposal could end up…" sets you up for a negative, unintended consequence. Eliminate any choices that sound unrelated to the specific concern about shuttle capacity and charging.
Check for a realistic chain of events
For each answer choice, try to explain in one sentence: "Because they didn’t expand the shuttle network or charging, that would cause ___." Choose the option where that sentence makes clear, logical sense and connects back to the original goals.
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the situation and the goals
The proposal: ban personal cars from downtown and use free electric shuttles instead. The stated goals are to decrease pollution and improve pedestrian safety. So the plan is supposed to make things cleaner and safer.
Notice the critics’ specific concern
The critics say the council has not budgeted for:
- expanding the shuttle network, and
- upgrading charging infrastructure.
Then the sentence says: "Without these investments, the critics argue, the proposal could end up _____." So the blank should describe a negative, unintended result caused by inadequate shuttle/charging capacity—ideally one that undermines the plan’s goals.
Check for logical cause-and-effect
We need a choice that:
- is clearly negative (since it’s a criticism), and
- is a realistic result of not expanding shuttles or charging.
Ask: If the shuttle system can’t scale up or stay reliably charged, what might people do instead, and how could that affect the plan’s pollution-reduction goal?
Evaluate each answer choice against the critics’ concern
Choice A: Talks about harming downtown restaurants. The passage gives a specific infrastructure criticism (no shuttle expansion/charging upgrades), not an economic argument about restaurant foot traffic.
Choice B: Focuses on people adopting electric personal vehicles. Even though charging is mentioned, the proposal is about replacing downtown car travel with an electric shuttle fleet, not about encouraging people to buy electric cars.
Choice C: Mentions pedestrian safety being improved less than predicted. This is negative, but it doesn’t clearly follow from the lack of shuttle expansion and charging upgrades; those omissions most directly affect whether the plan can actually replace car travel and reduce emissions.
Choice D: If downtown is car-restricted but the shuttle system isn’t expanded and can’t be reliably powered, more people may still drive around the restricted zone rather than switch to shuttles—creating longer trips and more emissions. That directly reverses the goal of decreasing pollution.
Therefore, the best completion is: increasing air pollution by forcing motorists to take longer routes around the vehicle-restricted zone.