BackClose

Select a Subject

Reading

Question 6 of 24

beginning of content:
Tags:
SAT

Exam

Learn more about this exam.

PSAT/NMSQT

Exam

Learn more about this exam.

PSAT 10

Exam

Learn more about this exam.

No Subscore
This question contributes to the total Reading Test score but does not contribute to a subscore within the Reading Test.
Rhetoric

Skill

Learn more about Rhetoric.

History/Social Studies

Passage Content

Questions 6–8 are based on the following passage and supplementary material.

This passage is adapted from Richard Florida, The Great Reset. ©2010 by Richard Florida.

In today’s idea-driven economy, the cost of time is what really matters. With the constant pressure to innovate, it makes little sense to waste countless collective hours commuting. So, the most efficient and productive regions are those in which people are thinking and working—not sitting in traffic.

The auto-dependent transportation system has reached its limit in most major cities and megaregions. Commuting by car is among the least efficient of all our activities—not to mention among the least enjoyable, according to detailed research by the Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman and his colleagues. Though one might think that the economic crisis beginning in 2007 would have reduced traffic (high unemployment means fewer workers traveling to and from work), the opposite has been true. Average commutes have lengthened, and congestion has gotten worse, if anything. The average commute rose in 2008 to 25.5 minutes, “erasing years of decreases to stand at the level of 2000, as people had to leave home earlier in the morning to pick up friends for their ride to work or to catch a bus or subway train,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which collects the figures. And those are average figures. Commutes are far longer in the big West Coast cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco and the East Coast cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. In many of these cities, gridlock has become the norm, not just at rush hour but all day, every day.

The costs are astounding. In Los Angeles, congestion eats up more than 485 million working hours a year; that’s seventy hours, or nearly two weeks, of full-time work per commuter. In D.C., the time cost of congestion is sixty-two hours per worker per year. In New York it’s forty-four hours. Average it out, and the time cost across America’s thirteen biggest city-regions is fifty-one hours per worker per year. Across the country, commuting wastes 4.2 billion hours of work time annually—nearly a full workweek for every commuter. The overall cost to the U.S. economy is nearly $90 billion when lost productivity and wasted fuel are taken into account. At the Martin Prosperity Institute, we calculate that every minute shaved off America’s commuting time is worth $19.5 billion in value added to the economy. The numbers add up fast: five minutes is worth $97.7 billion; ten minutes, $195 billion; fifteen minutes, $292 billion.

It’s ironic that so many people still believe the main remedy for traffic congestion is to build more roads and highways, which of course only makes the problem worse. New roads generate higher levels of “induced traffic,” that is, new roads just invite drivers to drive more and lure people who take mass transit back to their cars. Eventually, we end up with more clogged roads rather than a long-term improvement in traffic flow.

The coming decades will likely see more intense clustering of jobs, innovation, and productivity in a smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions. Some regions could end up bloated beyond the capacity of their infrastructure, while others struggle, their promise stymied by inadequate human or other resources.

The figure presents a bar graph titled "The Most Congested Cities in 2011, Yearly Hours of Delay per Automobile Commuter."  From left to right, there are 16 vertical bars along the horizontal axis. The numbers on the vertical axis, from bottom to top, are zero through 80 in increments of 20. The numbers of hours represented by the heights of the bars are as follows: Washington, DC, 68; Los Angeles, 61; San Francisco, 61; New York City, 60; Boston, 54; Houston, 52; Very Large City Average, 52; Atlanta, 50; Chicago, 50; Philadelphia, 49; Seattle, 49; Miami, 48; Dallas-Fort Worth, 45; Detroit, 40; San Diego, 39; and Phoenix, 38. All bars are shaded gray with the exception of the bar labeled "Very Large City Average," which is shaded black.  The graph is cited as "Adapted from Adam Werbach, 'The American Commuter Spends 38 Hours a Year Stuck in Traffic.' Copyright 2013 by The Atlantic."

Adapted from Adam Werbach, “The American Commuter Spends 38 Hours a Year Stuck in Traffic.” ©2013 by The Atlantic.

Yes

Select an Answer

The passage most strongly suggests that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute share which assumption?

Employees who work from home are more valuable to their employers than employees who commute.

Correct Answer: 
No

Employees whose commutes are shortened will use the time saved to do additional productive work for their employers.

Correct Answer: 
Yes

Employees can conduct business activities, such as composing memos or joining conference calls, while commuting.

Correct Answer: 
No

Employees who have lengthy commutes tend to make more money than employees who have shorter commutes.

Correct Answer: 
No

View Correct Answer

Choice B is the best answer because details in the third paragraph (lines 3046) strongly suggest that researchers (“we”) at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that shorter commutes will lead to more productive time for workers. The author notes that “across the country, commuting wastes 4.2 billion hours of work time annually” and that “the overall cost to the U.S. economy is nearly $90 billion when lost productivity and wasted fuel are taken into account” (lines 3741). Given also that those at the institute “calculate that every minute shaved off America’s commuting time is worth $19.5 billion in value added to the economy” (lines 4244), it can reasonably be concluded that some of that added value is from heightened worker productivity.

Choice A is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that employees who work from home are more valuable to their employers than employees who commute. Although the passage does criticize long commutes, it does not propose working from home as a solution.

Choice C is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that employees can conduct business activities, such as composing memos or joining conference calls, while commuting. The passage does discuss commuting in some detail, but it does not mention activities that commuters can or should be undertaking while commuting, and it generally portrays commuting time as lost or wasted time.

Choice D is not the best answer because there is no evidence in the passage that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute assume that employees who have lengthy commutes tend to make more money than employees who have shorter commutes. The passage does not draw any clear links between the amount of money employees make and the commutes they have.

Question Difficulty: 
medium
Passage Complexity: 
lower
Objective: 

Students must reasonably infer an assumption that is implied in the passage.