Question

According to a recent publication by the city council, the most cost-effective solution to the problem of congestion on State Highway 1 is to build an elevated roadway above the existing six lanes. This solution makes the most sense because it will save the expense of surveying and breaking new ground for an alternate route, and will also mean that crews will need to construct half as many lanes, since the current lanes will remain in use after the elevated portion is completed.

The conclusion in the passage above is based on which of the following assumptions?


A. That the city council has already approved funding for an elevated roadway above the existing highway.
B. That the cost of surveying and breaking new ground for an alternate route is greater than the difference in cost of constructing an elevated roadway and a normal roadway on the new ground.
C. That the large number of people traveling State Highway 1 every day make easing congestion a priority for the city council.
D. That the city council can not afford to fund the construction of more than six lanes, and so seeks a solution that will require building as few lanes as possible.
E. That drivers on State Highway 1 are unwilling to pay a toll to use the road, and so the city council must provide all funds for improvement.

Answer 1

The conclusion that an elevated roadway is the most cost-effective congestion solution on State Highway 1 assumes surveying and breaking new ground costs for an alternate route exceed the cost difference between building an elevated roadway and a normal roadway on new ground (Option B).

Step-by-step explanation:

The conclusion in the passage that building an elevated roadway above the existing lanes on State Highway 1 is the most cost-effective solution to congestion is based on the assumption that the cost of surveying and breaking new ground for an alternate route is greater than the difference in cost of constructing an elevated roadway and a normal roadway on the new ground (Option B). This assumption suggests that it is financially more viable to use the existing infrastructure and enhance it, rather than embarking on the construction of a completely new route which would include costs such as land surveys, property acquisition, environmental impact studies, and the construction of a full set of lanes from scratch.

The assumption also implicitly suggests that an elevated roadway can be built at a lower or comparable increment in cost compared to constructing the same number of lanes on new ground, factoring in the savings from not having to conduct a survey and break new ground. The other options either speculate on funding decisions and priorities of the council or assume constraints and attitudes that are not directly supported by the given passage.