Question 47·Medium·Inferences
Several urban planners argued that converting a car lane into a protected bike lane on a busy avenue would inevitably gridlock traffic. During a six-month pilot, average car speeds declined in the first two weeks. After traffic signals were retimed and some drivers began using parallel routes, travel times returned to near their previous levels, and nearby shops reported higher sales. The pilot report notes that brief disruptions are common when transportation systems change and should be weighed against longer-term outcomes. Therefore, ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For SAT “Therefore, ____” questions, first summarize the argument: identify the prediction or concern, then trace what actually happened, especially any longer-term results. Pay close attention to the sentence just before the blank, since it usually sets up the key idea the conclusion must capture. Then eliminate choices that (1) only focus on early or partial evidence, (2) introduce extreme words like “always” or “never,” or (3) contradict facts in the passage. The correct choice will restate the overall takeaway in a cautious, supported way that fits all the given information.
Hints
Focus on the last sentence
Reread the final line: “The pilot report notes that brief disruptions are common when transportation systems change and should be weighed against longer-term outcomes.” Think about what general point this is making about short-term vs. long-term effects.
Connect the evidence to the planners’ worries
The planners were worried about gridlock. Compare that worry with what actually happened over six months: initial slowdowns, then adjusted signals, changed routes, and travel times nearly back to normal, plus higher shop sales. What does that suggest about how we should view the early slowdown?
Watch out for extreme or unrelated claims
Check each choice for words like “always” or ideas that go beyond what the passage says. Also ask: does this choice directly follow from the pilot’s results and the report’s comment, or does it add something new that isn’t supported?
Step-by-step Explanation
Understand the situation and predictions
First, summarize the scenario in your own words:
- Urban planners predicted that turning a car lane into a bike lane would gridlock (severely jam) traffic.
- A six-month pilot was run to test this.
- In the first two weeks, average car speeds declined (traffic got slower). This sets up a possible concern that the project might be bad for traffic, at least at first.
Track what happens over the full pilot period
Now notice what happens after the initial disruption:
- After traffic signals were retimed and drivers adjusted by using parallel routes, travel times returned to near previous levels (traffic basically recovered).
- Nearby shops reported higher sales (a positive effect).
- The pilot report states that brief disruptions are common when systems change and should be weighed against longer-term outcomes. So the overall picture is: short-term trouble, then adjustment and normal (or even improved) conditions.
Figure out what the conclusion must say
The word “Therefore” tells you the blank must be a logical conclusion drawn from all the information, especially the final sentence about brief disruptions vs. long-term outcomes. Ask yourself:
- Do the results support the planners’ original claim of inevitable gridlock, or weaken it?
- Does the report focus on early problems, later recovery, or both? The correct conclusion will connect the idea that short-term disruptions are normal with the fact that longer-term outcomes were acceptable or even positive.
Match that conclusion to the answer choices
Now evaluate the choices:
- One choice says that short-term slowdowns after the lane conversion are not, by themselves, enough to show that the project is harmful overall. This matches the evidence: traffic eventually recovered and shop sales improved, and the report says brief disruptions should be weighed against long-term results.
- The other options either overgeneralize from one case, contradict the actions that helped (retiming signals), or incorrectly say the project failed. Therefore, the correct answer is: short-term slowdowns following the lane conversion are not, by themselves, sufficient evidence that the project is harmful overall.