Question:

Argument:
"Cities that invest in cycling infrastructure will see a long-term reduction in traffic congestion because people will shift from cars to bicycles."
Question:
Which of the following is an essential assumption in the argument?

Show Hint

Assumptions fill the logical gap between the evidence and the conclusion. Ask yourself: “What must be true for the argument to work?”
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution - 1

Approach: An essential assumption is an unstated link the conclusion cannot survive without. Trace the argument's chain and find the silent step.

Step 1 \(-\) the chain: Invest in cycling infrastructure $\to$ people shift from cars to bicycles $\to$ congestion falls long-term. The whole case rides on that middle shift actually happening at scale.

Step 2 \(-\) the gap: Building lanes does not force anyone off the road. The argument quietly assumes a real, sizeable chunk of current drivers will choose to cycle once the infrastructure exists.

Step 3 \(-\) the essential assumption: "A significant portion of current car users are willing and able to switch to bicycles if cycling infrastructure improves." Without it the first link breaks and congestion need not fall.

Negation test: If hardly any drivers are willing or able to switch, the lanes sit empty and congestion stays \(-\) the conclusion dies. A statement that destroys the argument when negated is exactly an essential assumption.

Why the wrong options fail: One about cyclists being healthier is a side benefit, not needed for the congestion claim. One about cycling being cheaper is not required \(-\) people may switch for other reasons. One about other cities is out of scope.

\[\boxed{\text{Correct: enough car users will actually switch to cycling.}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

Reverse-engineering from the conclusion: Start from what the conclusion demands and work backward to see what must already be true. The conclusion promises a long-term drop in congestion. Congestion is made of cars on the road; it can only fall if the number of cars on the road actually falls. Cars only fall off the road if drivers actually get out of them and onto bicycles.

Working backward: congestion falls → fewer cars are driven → drivers switch to cycling → a real, sizeable number of current drivers must be both willing and physically able to make that switch once infrastructure exists. That last link is never stated; it is smuggled in as a silent requirement, which makes it the essential assumption. Remove it and the chain breaks at its very last link — new lanes could sit unused while every car stays exactly where it is.

This backward chain never needs claims about health benefits, cost savings, or other cities — those never appear as required links in getting from "build lanes" to "less congestion."

\[ \boxed{\text{A real, sizeable share of current drivers is willing and able to switch to cycling.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top CAT Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) Questions

View More Questions