Reading the Attitude in a Bike-Lane Pilot Article
You are answering a reading comprehension question on a 320-word article about a pilot project on Rue Cartier. The article states that the city added a 2.4 km protected bike lane for 18 months. During the pilot, weekday bicycle counts rose 18%, car traffic on the street fell 7%, and average car trip time on nearby streets rose 2.5 minutes. The article quotes a shop owners' association saying 'sales are down 12% on the street' and a city official saying 'the decline is modest and may be seasonal.' The author writes: 'The pilot has produced measurable, if uneven, results.' and later notes that 'critics claim the lane has hurt business, while officials insist the data are inconclusive.' Your exam question asks for the author's attitude and the best-supported conclusion. You must not use outside knowledge.
1. What is the author's attitude toward the bike-lane pilot? Support your answer with two specific textual clues and explain how each clue shapes the attitude.
Read the worked answer
The attitude is cautiously favorable, not neutral. Two clues:
- 'Measurable, if uneven, results.' 'Measurable' acknowledges real outcomes - the 18% rise in cycling and 7% fall in car traffic - while 'if uneven' concedes costs such as the 12% sales claim and the 2.5-minute delay. The phrasing is a hedged endorsement, not a rejection.
- 'Critics claim ... while officials insist ...' The author attributes both sides rather than adopting either. 'Claim' can suggest doubt about the business group's assertion; 'insist' can suggest the city is defending a position. Together they show a journalist keeping distance while still treating the pilot as worth testing.
So the best label is guarded approval: the author sees evidence of benefit but does not call the pilot an unqualified success.
2. A classmate concludes, 'The article proves the bike lane hurt local business.' Using only the text, explain why this conclusion is too strong.
Read the worked answer
The conclusion is too strong because the text reports a claim, not proof of cause. The shop owners' association says sales are down 12%, but the article does not give a baseline, a comparison street, or a time frame that would rule out seasonal or wider economic causes. The city official explicitly calls the decline 'modest' and 'possibly seasonal.' Meanwhile, the article also reports an 18% rise in bicycle counts and a 7% drop in car traffic, which are measured outcomes, not opinions. 'Proves' would require controlled evidence that the lane caused the sales loss. The text supports only a weaker statement: some businesses report lower sales during the pilot, and the cause is disputed. The author's own phrase 'data are inconclusive' signals that the strong conclusion is unsupported.