Text 1 City planners face the challenge of revitalizing downtown areas that have declined over decades. The most effective strategy...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Text 1
City planners face the challenge of revitalizing downtown areas that have declined over decades. The most effective strategy is to focus on individual neighborhoods sequentially, allowing planners to concentrate resources and attention on specific areas before moving to the next. This neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach enables planners to address unique local needs, build community partnerships, and create tailored solutions that reflect each area's distinct character and challenges.
Text 2
While targeting individual neighborhoods may seem like a logical approach to downtown revitalization, this strategy can be problematic. Planners who divide the city into separate zones risk overlooking important connections between neighborhoods and may miss opportunities for coordinated development that benefits the entire downtown area. This fragmented approach can also lead to uneven development patterns that create new disparities.
Which choice best describes a difference in how the author of Text 1 and the author of Text 2 view neighborhood-focused planning strategies?
The author of Text 1 argues that neighborhood planning creates community partnerships, while the author of Text 2 contends that it isolates residents from broader city initiatives.
While the author of Text 1 believes that focusing on individual neighborhoods is effective, the author of Text 2 views such an approach as problematic.
The author of Text 1 claims that neighborhood planning addresses unique local needs, whereas the author of Text 2 argues that all downtown areas face identical challenges.
The author of Text 1 focuses on resource allocation benefits, while the author of Text 2 emphasizes the importance of community input in planning decisions.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Text 1: "City planners face the challenge of revitalizing downtown areas that have declined over decades." |
|
| "The most effective strategy is to focus on individual neighborhoods sequentially, allowing planners to concentrate resources and attention on specific areas before moving to the next." |
|
| "This neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach enables planners to address unique local needs, build community partnerships, and create tailored solutions that reflect each area's distinct character and challenges." |
|
| Text 2: "While targeting individual neighborhoods may seem like a logical approach to downtown revitalization, this strategy can be problematic." |
|
| "Planners who divide the city into separate zones risk overlooking important connections between neighborhoods and may miss opportunities for coordinated development that benefits the entire downtown area." |
|
| "This fragmented approach can also lead to uneven development patterns that create new disparities." |
|
Part B: Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Text 1 advocates for sequential neighborhood-focused planning as the most effective downtown revitalization strategy, while Text 2 argues this approach is problematic despite seeming logical.
Argument Flow: Text 1 presents neighborhood-by-neighborhood planning as the solution to downtown decline, explaining how it allows focused resources and tailored approaches. Text 2 directly challenges this, acknowledging its apparent logic but arguing it creates fragmentation that misses important city-wide connections and leads to uneven development patterns.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? The difference in how the two authors view neighborhood-focused planning strategies for downtown revitalization.
What type of answer do we need? A comparison that captures the fundamental disagreement between the texts.
Any limiting keywords? "Best describes a difference" - we need the most accurate characterization of their opposing viewpoints.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The correct answer should capture that Text 1 sees neighborhood-focused planning as beneficial and effective, while Text 2 sees it as problematic and potentially harmful
- Text 1 clearly advocates for this approach, calling it "the most effective strategy"
- Text 2 explicitly states this strategy "can be problematic" and explains multiple concerns about it
- The right answer should show this fundamental disagreement - one author supporting the approach, the other criticizing it
The author of Text 1 argues that neighborhood planning creates community partnerships, while the author of Text 2 contends that it isolates residents from broader city initiatives.
✗ Incorrect
- Text 1 does mention community partnerships as a benefit, but Text 2 never discusses isolating residents from broader initiatives
- Text 2 focuses on missing connections between neighborhoods and coordination problems, not resident isolation
- This mischaracterizes Text 2's actual argument
While the author of Text 1 believes that focusing on individual neighborhoods is effective, the author of Text 2 views such an approach as problematic.
✓ Correct
- Perfectly captures the core disagreement: Text 1 explicitly calls neighborhood focusing "the most effective strategy" while Text 2 directly states this approach "can be problematic"
- This matches our prethinking exactly - one sees it as effective, the other as problematic
The author of Text 1 claims that neighborhood planning addresses unique local needs, whereas the author of Text 2 argues that all downtown areas face identical challenges.
✗ Incorrect
- Text 1 does mention addressing "unique local needs," but Text 2 never argues all downtown areas face identical challenges
- Text 2's criticism is about missing connections and coordination, not about uniformity of challenges
- This creates a strawman version of Text 2's position
The author of Text 1 focuses on resource allocation benefits, while the author of Text 2 emphasizes the importance of community input in planning decisions.
✗ Incorrect
- Text 1 mentions resource concentration but this isn't its primary focus
- Text 2 never emphasizes community input - it focuses on coordination and connection problems
- Both parts misrepresent the authors' main arguments