A commuter advocacy group argues that adding a protected bike lane on Central Avenue will reduce traffic congestion. In another corridor, Maple Street, the city added a protected bike lane and later measured fewer cars during morning rush hour. The group reasons that when cycling feels safer, more residents will bike instead of drive, which removes cars from the road. Since Central Avenue and Maple Street serve similar residential areas and both connect to the downtown business district, the group concludes that a protected bike lane on Central Avenue will also reduce congestion during peak commuting times.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
- After the bike lane was added on Maple Street, no major road construction or transit service changes occurred along that corridor.
- Central Avenue currently has more delivery trucks stopping at the curb than Maple Street does.
- Many residents along Central Avenue have expressed support for more environmentally friendly transportation options.
- On Maple Street, counts of bicycle traffic increased substantially after the protected bike lane was installed. (correct answer)
- Some downtown employers offer incentives to employees who use public transit.
Explanation: The advocacy group concludes that a protected bike lane on Central Avenue will cut congestion, analogizing from Maple Street's reduced cars post-installation and reasoning safer cycling shifts commuters from driving. A key flaw is assuming the lane caused more biking, which then removed cars, without confirming increased bicycle use. Choice D strengthens by verifying higher bike traffic on Maple after the lane, supporting the mechanism of mode shift. Choice A might appeal by noting no other changes on Maple, but it focuses on consistency rather than evidencing the biking increase central to reducing cars. Strengthen causal chains by targeting evidence for intermediate steps, ensuring the full reasoning holds rather than just ruling out broad alternatives.