Logical reasoning PrepTest 137 · Section 3 · Question 1

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Action – Widening and extending existing highways
Goal/Intended result – Reduce traffic congestion
Actual result – More traffic congestion/delays

Answer Anticipation:
While the question stem has a lot more verbiage than normal, it's asking a regular Paradox question—the additional detail just asks you to explain the unexpected outcome, as almost all of these questions do.

This stimulus can be understood around a Goal/Approach framework that we've seen so many times before. We know that the goal or motive behind an action doesn't have to align with the action itself or the outcome—people make bad decisions that are sometimes counterproductive, or actions can have unexpected outcomes, as this one did.

Normally, when there's an unexpected outcome from an approach to a problem that sounds reasonable, it's because the action caused something else to change that resulted in the opposite outcome. In this case, any answer that raises another change to traffic patterns or highway utilization after the construction will resolve the paradox. For example, maybe more people drive on highways after major construction projects!

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a change brought about by the highway construction that could lead to the unexpected outcome. If the increase in the number of people driving on the highways after they're widened and extended is greater than the increased capacity, traffic could get worse.

Key Takeaway:
Motive/goal, action, and outcome don't always line up. Someone could take an action that they intend to accomplish something, but it might be a bad idea or have unintended consequences. And making a change in an attempt to achieve a goal might cause other changes leading to those unintended consequences. Whenever any of these elements are raised in a stimulus, frame your understanding of the question around them and see where the breakdown is.

Incorrect. While this might explain how the problem developed, if the population leveled off, this doesn't explain how things got worse after the construction. The population would need to continue increasing past the new capacity of the highways for increased population to serve as an explanation.

Incorrect. Presumably, a wider highway has more lanes. While accidents aren't directly mentioned in the stimulus, they could explain traffic jams. However, this answer establishes that there are fewer accidents after the widening, thus suggesting that traffic jams because of them should go down, not up.

Incorrect. There's no indication how this would impact traffic, or why it's relevant to the urban area discussed in the stimulus.

Incorrect. While this may be true and explain why there were issues to begin with, it doesn't explain why making the highways bigger caused more traffic than when they were smaller.