GRE官方试题

The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

题目讲解

【翻译】
乘客抱怨说Shady Village和Bright City之间的Blue Highway高峰时期的交通拥堵使他们在路上所花的时间多了一倍。一些乘客曾要求修建一条附加机动车道，但最近在附近的Green Highway所修建的类似车道显然吸引了更多的车辆，这可以从去年冬天那里的高峰时段交通拥堵增加的事实判断出来。为减少Blue Highway高峰时段的交通拥堵，应该修建一条自行车道而不是机动车道。这一措施将会取得成因为Shady
Village的很多市是积极的自行车爱好者;最近在那里举行的问卷调查中有75%的回应者说他们愿意用比当前更多的时间骑车。

【分析】
1.作者没有提供足够的证据说明新秀的lane吸引了更多的commuters。可能rush hour减少了
2.没有提供调查的详细信息，可能只有一部分喜欢运动的人参加了，而其实没有那么多
3.其他因素：没有考虑其他可能的方法减少交通拥挤;出台新的政策，法规，限制汽车的使用

【提纲】
1吸引更多车辆可能是因为其他路段堵塞严重，其实是起到了疏导(evacuate)的作用。车辆多不说明堵车多，G是否堵车增多应该指出。
2样本差异。即使G失败，不说明B也失败。路况不同。
3B交通堵塞是由于汽车引起的，自行车是否占主导。
4survey。愿意骑车不说明他们会导致交通堵塞。