Question 33·Hard·Inferences
Urban planner Priya Mehta notes that the most successful pedestrian zones are those where visitors linger, yet changes implemented in Riverside Plaza have apparently shortened average visit times. Sociologist Aaron Gomez attributes the shift to the plaza’s new cluster of high-end retailers, but Mehta disagrees, pointing out that comparable stores in neighboring districts have not produced the same effect. Instead, she argues that replacing the plaza’s patchwork of bricks, cobblestones, and concrete with uniform gray granite slabs has rendered the space “visually monotonous” and therefore less inviting. If Mehta is correct, the decreased time visitors spend in Riverside Plaza would indicate that _____
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For “complete the text” inference questions, first underline whose perspective the blank must follow (look for phrases like “If [person] is correct…”). Briefly restate that person’s key claim and what evidence they give, then turn their specific explanation into a general principle that could logically be drawn from the situation. Finally, eliminate choices that (1) contradict that person’s view, (2) introduce new, unsupported ideas, or (3) are too absolute (words like “whenever,” “always,” or “regardless”) compared with the more limited claim in the passage, and choose the option that cleanly paraphrases the implied relationship or conclusion.
Hints
Focus on the phrase “If Mehta is correct”
Make sure your answer follows Mehta’s explanation of the shorter visits, not Gomez’s. Ask yourself: according to Mehta, what actually caused the change?
Compare the two proposed causes
What two different things are being blamed for the shorter visits: the new high-end stores or the change in paving? Which one does Mehta reject, and which does she support?
Think in terms of a general rule
The question asks what the shorter visits “would indicate.” That means you need a general conclusion about what affects how long visitors stay, based on Mehta’s explanation of this specific case.
Step-by-step Explanation
Clarify whose reasoning you must follow
The question says, “If Mehta is correct…” so your answer must follow Mehta’s explanation, not Gomez’s.
- Gomez blames the high-end retailers.
- Mehta disagrees and offers a different cause.
Any correct answer must match Mehta’s view of what caused the shorter visits.
Summarize Mehta’s argument about what changed
Identify the key evidence Mehta uses:
- She notes that comparable high-end stores in neighboring districts did not shorten visit times.
- Therefore, she thinks the stores alone cannot explain the change in Riverside Plaza.
- Instead, she points to replacing the patchwork of bricks, cobblestones, and concrete with uniform gray granite slabs.
- She calls the new look “visually monotonous” and “less inviting.”
So Mehta contrasts two possible influences on visit length: store types vs. the visual character of the space.
Translate her specific claim into a general principle
The question asks what the shorter visits “would indicate” if Mehta is right. That means:
- Use this situation as an example of a broader idea.
- Since the stores stayed roughly comparable but the aesthetic variety changed, Mehta thinks the change in visual variety is what drove behavior.
- So the general takeaway should compare the impact of visual/aesthetic variety with the impact of store types on how long people stay.
Match that principle to the best answer choice
Now compare each option to Mehta’s reasoning:
- Only one choice states that how visually varied a public space is can have a stronger effect on how long visitors remain than what kinds of stores it has. That is exactly what Mehta’s explanation of Riverside Plaza implies.
So the correct completion is:
B) the degree of aesthetic variety in a public space can have a stronger effect on how long visitors remain there than the types of stores that space contains.