Inference and Evidence in a Short Informational Passage
Read this passage: In January, the city of Marston launched a pilot program that replaced two downtown car lanes with protected bike lanes. During the six-month pilot, bike traffic on the corridor rose 38%, while car traffic fell 11%. Nearby business owners reported mixed results: 14 of 25 surveyed said deliveries were slower, but 18 said foot traffic increased. The city council will vote in September on making the lanes permanent. The transportation director noted that the pilot cost $220,000 and that a permanent installation would cost $1.1 million.
1. What can a reader reasonably infer about the business owners' views? Support your answer with specific details from the passage.
Read the worked answer
The owners are divided rather than uniformly opposed or supportive. The passage says 'mixed results': 14 of 25 said deliveries were slower, which is a majority of those surveyed and suggests concern about logistics. But 18 said foot traffic increased, which suggests a perceived benefit. Because the numbers overlap and the survey total is 25, some owners likely reported both a cost and a benefit. The safest inference is qualified support or uncertainty, not blanket opposition.
2. A council member claims the pilot 'reduced car use.' Which detail supports that claim, and what caution should be attached?
Read the worked answer
The supporting detail is that car traffic on the corridor fell 11% during the pilot. Caution: the passage does not say whether the drop was caused by the bike lanes, whether car traffic shifted to other streets, or whether the six-month period was typical. The 38% bike increase and 11% car decrease are corridor-level changes, not citywide proof. The claim is supported as a description of the corridor but not as a causal citywide conclusion.
3. What additional information would be most useful in deciding whether the permanent installation is cost-effective?
Read the worked answer
Useful information includes the number of riders per dollar spent, maintenance costs, safety outcomes (crashes/injuries), effects on nearby businesses' revenue, and whether car traffic was diverted or simply reduced. Comparing the $1.1 million cost with measurable benefits-rider counts, safety, business sales-would support cost-effectiveness. The passage gives cost and traffic changes but not benefits in monetary or safety terms, so the council cannot judge cost-effectiveness from the passage alone.