RC Passage: The Idea of New Towns- Manhattan GMAT

[harika.apu]

The idea of building “New Towns” to absorb growth is frequently considered a cure-all for urban problems. It is erroneously assumed that if new residents can be diverted from existing centers, the present urban situation at least will get no worse. It is further and equally erroneously assumed that since European New Towns have been financially and socially successful, we can expect the same sorts of results in the United States.

Present planning, thinking, and legislation will not produce the kinds of New Town that have been successful abroad. It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed.

Such ill-considered projects not only will fail to relieve pressures on existing cities but will, in fact, tend to weaken those cities further by drawing away high-income citizens and increasing the concentration of low-income groups that are unable to provide tax income. The remaining taxpayers, accordingly, will face increasing burdens, and industry and commerce will seek escape. Unfortunately, this mechanism is already at work in some metropolitan areas.

The promoters of New Towns so far in the United States have been developers, builders, and financial institutions. The main interest of these promoters is economic gain. Furthermore, federal regulations designed to promote the New Town idea do not consider social needs as the European New Town plans do. In fact, our regulations specify virtually all the ingredients of the typical suburban community, with a bit of political rhetoric thrown in.

A workable American New Town formula should be established as firmly here as the national formula was in Britain. All possible social and governmental innovations as well as financial factors should be thoroughly considered and accommodated in this policy. Its objectives should be clearly stated, and both incentives and penalties should be provided to ensure that the objectives are pursued. If such a policy is developed, then the New Town approach can play an important role in alleviating America’s urban problems.
.
2) The author believes that New Towns are not being built where they are genuinely needed because
(A) the government offers developers incentives to build in other areas
(B) the promoters of New Town are motivated chiefly by self-interest
(C) few people want to live in areas where land is still cheap
(D) no studies have been done to determine the best locations
(E) federal regulations make construction in those areas less profitable

For this question i marked E but OA is B
My reasoning for E is from paragraph 2 which says legislation will produce New Towns as in abroad and these will multiply suburbs where land is cheap and profitable
So i thought for areas where New Towns are genuinely required, it is comparatively less profitable.

Can someone tell me why is B better than E ?

Thanks:)

[harika.apu]

Can someone please respond to above question.?
Still struggling with same doubt

[CindyC453]

As passage stated : " It will multiply suburbs or encourage developments in areas where land is cheap and construction profitable rather than where New Towns are genuinely needed." However, choice E is just opposite of the original meaning : "federal regulations make construction in those areas less profitable."

[JbhB682]

6. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes
which of the following about suburbs?
(A) They are a panacea for urban problems.
(B) They will soon be plagued by the same problems that now plague cities.
(C) They are poor models for New Towns.
(D) They drive up property values in inner cities.
(E) They alleviate some, but not all, of America’s urban problems

Hi - the OA is C in this case

Could you confirm how is it C ....

I chose A because
a) passage talks about people leaving for these "new towns" once these "new towns" are constructed

b) if people are leaving for these "new towns" from suburbs --- won't the suburb have all these problems discussed in the passage (Smaller tax base / higher taxes on the poor / businesses leaving.....) ...i.e. the suburbs BECOME a panacea for urban problems

Please let me know if there is a problem in this thinking

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I should check that we're on the same page regarding the word 'panacea'. It means 'cure-all' or 'universal solution'. Very little is mentioned of suburbs in the passage, certainly not enough to justify such a strong claim. In fact, answer A is something of a reversal trap, since the author seems to have a negative opinion of suburbs: she writes that present planning for new towns will not be successful; it will 'multiply suburbs'.