Question 134·Medium·Inferences
In her 2019 op-ed "Paint with Purpose," urban designer Laila Navarre describes a pilot project in which community groups were allowed to cover several downtown crosswalks with large, colorful patterns. The proposal was framed as a way to enliven the streetscape, and city engineers initially maintained that the paintings would have no measurable effect on driver behavior. Six months later, however, speed studies on those blocks showed a modest but consistent decline in average vehicle speeds, and the city soon incorporated painted crosswalks into its standard traffic-calming toolkit. For Navarre, this example most strongly supports the idea that ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For inference questions that ask what an example "most strongly supports," first summarize the example in your own words: what was tried, what people expected, and what actually happened. Then look for the answer that generalizes that specific pattern without adding extra claims or extreme language. Eliminate choices that (1) go far beyond the scope of the example, (2) contradict what actually occurred, or (3) use absolutes like "always," "entirely," or "only" that the passage does not justify. Aim to pick the statement that would make sense as a takeaway the author might write as the next sentence.
Hints
Focus on the contrast in expert opinion
Look carefully at what the city engineers believed at first about the painted crosswalks and what the later speed studies showed. How does this contrast suggest a bigger lesson?
Think about the purpose versus the outcome
The proposal was framed as a way to enliven the streetscape. But what actually changed after six months, and how did the city respond to that change?
Watch out for extreme wording
Check each answer for absolute words like "always," "entirely," or "only." Ask whether the passage really supports such a strong, general claim, or if it provides a more limited, specific example.
Match the scope of the example to the scope of the claim
The example is about one type of painted crosswalk project in certain downtown blocks. Which answer choice stays close to what that example can reasonably prove, without overgeneralizing?
Step-by-step Explanation
Restate what the project did
The pilot project allowed community groups to paint crosswalks with large, colorful patterns. This was presented as a way to enliven (brighten up or decorate) the streetscape, so it was framed mainly as an aesthetic, or visual, change.
Note the engineers’ initial belief
The city engineers "initially maintained that the paintings would have no measurable effect on driver behavior." That means the experts believed the paintings would not change how drivers behaved (for example, how fast they drove).
See what actually happened and how the city reacted
Six months later, speed studies showed a "modest but consistent" decline in average vehicle speeds on those blocks. In response, the city added painted crosswalks to its official "traffic-calming toolkit"—that is, a set of strategies to slow cars and improve safety. So the change did affect driver behavior, and the city started using it as a real safety measure.
Generalize the lesson Navarre draws
The question asks, "For Navarre, this example most strongly supports the idea that ______." So we need a general idea that matches:
- The change was small and aesthetic (painted patterns).
- Experts first thought it would have no measurable effect.
- It ended up having a real, practical impact (lower speeds) and was adopted as a tool.
Choice D, “small aesthetic interventions can have practical impacts that experts may initially overlook,” fits all of these points: the interventions are visual, they had real effects on driving, and the engineers initially missed or dismissed that possibility.