Dr. Maria Santos and colleagues investigated the effectiveness of a new express bus system implemented across multiple neighborhoods in Metro...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Dr. Maria Santos and colleagues investigated the effectiveness of a new express bus system implemented across multiple neighborhoods in Metro City during 2019-2021. The research team conducted a comprehensive analysis of transit performance across different urban zones. Quarterly ridership data revealed significant variability in satisfaction levels between high-density and low-density areas. However, the team concluded that the express bus system's benefits appeared sporadically in the high-density areas. Detailed examination of district-specific metrics showed dramatic fluctuations in passenger responses, highlighting the inconsistent impact of the transit improvements.
Municipal governments increasingly emphasize data-driven approaches to city planning. Advanced analytics, demographic modeling, and economic forecasting now inform most major development decisions. These quantitative methods have transformed how planners allocate resources and design urban spaces. 'What do the residents actually want?' Some planners, however, view this question as a problematic distraction from evidence-based planning. Critics argue that community input sessions and resident surveys can undermine carefully researched development strategies. Yet advocates like Maria Rodriguez of the Community Planning Initiative believe this question highlights a crucial gap in data-driven approaches, arguing that resident preferences should complement, not compete with, analytical planning methods.
Which choice best describes data from the study that support the underlined conclusion?
Satisfaction scores in Downtown and Midtown districts varied considerably across the four quarterly measurements, showing no consistent upward trend.
Although satisfaction scores were generally higher in Downtown and Midtown than in Riverside and Oakwood, the high-density areas showed lower scores than suburban areas in Q3 2019.
While all districts demonstrated some variation in satisfaction scores, the scores remained relatively stable in both Downtown and Midtown from Q2 to Q4 2019.
Satisfaction scores reached their peak levels in Q2 2019 for Downtown and Q3 2019 for Midtown, but data showed mixed results across the suburban districts.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Dr. Maria Santos and colleagues investigated the effectiveness of a new express bus system implemented across multiple neighborhoods in Metro City during 2019-2021." |
|
| "The researchers measured ridership satisfaction scores quarterly and found that high-density residential areas (Downtown and Midtown districts) showed positive responses to the transit improvements, while low-density suburban areas (Riverside and Oakwood districts) showed more mixed reactions." |
|
| "However, the team concluded that the express bus system's benefits appeared sporadically in the high-density areas." |
|
| "Chen and Rodriguez's analysis found that satisfaction scores in the Downtown district rose from 6.2 in Q1 2019 to 8.4 in Q2 2019, then dropped to 5.1 in Q3 2019, before climbing to 7.8 in Q4 2019." |
|
| "Similarly, Midtown district scores moved from 7.1 to 5.9 to 8.2 to 6.7 across the same quarters." |
|
| "The suburban districts showed more stable patterns, with Riverside maintaining scores between 4.8 and 5.3, while Oakwood stayed within a range of 3.9 to 4.4." |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Research on Metro City's express bus system found that while high-density areas generally responded positively, the benefits appeared inconsistently (sporadically) rather than steadily.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes a research study on bus system effectiveness, presents general findings showing positive responses in high-density areas, then narrows to a specific conclusion about sporadic benefits. This conclusion is then supported with detailed quarterly data showing highly variable satisfaction scores in high-density districts contrasted with stable scores in suburban areas.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The underlined conclusion claims benefits appeared "sporadically" in high-density areas
- "Sporadically" means irregularly, inconsistently, without a steady pattern
- The right answer should focus on the high-density areas (Downtown and Midtown)
- Should describe data showing inconsistent/irregular patterns
- Should show variation or lack of steady improvement in satisfaction scores
- Downtown (6.2→8.4→5.1→7.8) and Midtown (7.1→5.9→8.2→6.7) show major fluctuations
- Scores go up, then down, then up again with no consistent upward or downward trend, just irregular variation
Satisfaction scores in Downtown and Midtown districts varied considerably across the four quarterly measurements, showing no consistent upward trend.
- Directly describes the data pattern we identified
- Considerable variation in Downtown and Midtown scores with no consistent upward trend
- Perfectly matches our prethinking about what supports "sporadic" benefits
Although satisfaction scores were generally higher in Downtown and Midtown than in Riverside and Oakwood, the high-density areas showed lower scores than suburban areas in Q3 2019.
- Focuses on comparing high-density vs suburban areas rather than describing the sporadic pattern within high-density areas
- The Q3 2019 comparison doesn't support the "sporadic" conclusion
While all districts demonstrated some variation in satisfaction scores, the scores remained relatively stable in both Downtown and Midtown from Q2 to Q4 2019.
- Claims Downtown and Midtown remained "relatively stable from Q2 to Q4"
- This contradicts the actual data showing massive variation, not stability
Satisfaction scores reached their peak levels in Q2 2019 for Downtown and Q3 2019 for Midtown, but data showed mixed results across the suburban districts.
- Gets the peak data wrong and describes suburban districts as showing "mixed results" when they actually showed stable patterns
- Doesn't address the sporadic pattern in high-density areas