Text 1: Urban designer Dr. Susan Kim promotes pedestrian-only streets. "Car-free zones increase foot traffic, support local businesses, and improve air quality," Kim writes. "European examples show economic revitalization follows pedestrianization."
Text 2: Economic consultant Dr. Mark Chen cautions about context. "Pedestrianization benefits depend on transit access and adjacent parking," Chen observes. "Without alternatives, banning cars shifts shopping to car-accessible malls. Context determines success or failure."
What does Chen's analysis add to Kim's advocacy?
That pedestrianization is always harmful to businesses
That successful implementation requires supporting infrastructure
That European examples are entirely inapplicable elsewhere
That air quality doesn't matter for urban planning
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Chen doesn't reject pedestrianization but notes success "depends on transit access and adjacent parking." He adds that supporting infrastructure determines outcomes—context matters.
- Evidence: Chen: "Without alternatives," benefits fail to materialize.
- Reasoning: Kim's examples work because of European infrastructure.
- Conclusion: Chen adds infrastructure conditions for success.
Choice A is incorrect because Chen says benefits "depend on" conditions, not that harm is inevitable. Choice C is incorrect because Chen suggests transferability with proper conditions. Choice D is incorrect because air quality isn't what Chen disputes.