Q24 - All of the one-way streets in the city have

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Inference (must be true)

Stimulus Breakdown:
One way street --> bike lane.
Bike lane --> no city bus and parking not allowed.
Bus 9 travels the whole Batch Ave.

Answer Anticipation:
If we connect the conditionals, we have
"one-way street -> bike lane -> no city bus travel AND parking not allowed.
The contrapositive would be
"Parking allowed OR City bus travel -> no bike lane -> no one-way".

We can apply this to Batch Ave. Since a city bus travels its whole length, we know there is no bike lane for all of Batch Ave and no one-way street on any of Batch Ave.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) We know the opposite of this.

(B) YES, this is one of the inferences we thought we could derive.

(C) We don't know anything about whether parking is allowed on Batch Ave. Since Batch Ave does not have a bike lane, it may or may not have parking allowed.

(D) We don't know anything about whether parking is allowed on Batch Ave. Since Batch Ave does not have a bike lane, it may or may not have parking allowed.

(E) This says "if bus doesn't travel, then parking is not allowed". We can't derive that connection. Also, this is about [any type] of bus, when we only have info on "city buses".

Takeaway/Pattern: When we see conditional language in Inference, we anticipate that we'll either be linking up multiple conditionals, applying conditional rules to specific facts, contraposing conditionals, or some mix of those things.

Here, the first three claims were conditional, linking to give us
A -> B -> C and D.
The last claim triggered the contrapositive
~C or ~D -> ~B --> ~A.

The last three answers were all trying to bait students into making illegal inferences connecting the 2nd and 3rd sentences.
We knew "Bike lane -> no city bus travel"
and "bike lane -> parking not allowed",
but there is no way to connect "city bus travel" and "parking allowed".

#officialexplanation