DISCUSSION: I found this a difficult question. The right answer is very subtle. I first read it as “citizens have little opportunity to influence the policies.” Which wasn’t mentioned in the passage. But, it actually says citizens have little opportunity to influence the effects of the policies. And this is fairly well supported.
Lines 26-30 say that suburban residents “are forced” to drive to get places. And it is the driving that is cited as the cause of the problems in lines 26-35.
Further, the homes in neighborhoods are all the same price, and this has bad consequences for adaptability to diversity: see lines 19-26. The New Urbanists say that children growing up in subdivisions “are certain to be ill prepared” for diversity.
So again, there’s not much you could do, once you live in a non-diverse suburb. Taking these two facts together, it’s likely the new urbanists would agree there’s not much that suburban residents could do to counter the effects of the policies. Instead, the only way to counter the effects would be to move.
- The New Urbanists never said this. They just said the amount of time required is an important factor. But maybe low crime rates are a more important factor, for example.
“Primary factor” type answers are usually traps. In real life we rarely talk about “main” factors. E.g. One factor might be 42% important, another 41%. Do you really care that the first factor is 1% more important, and therefore “primary”? Not really, the effects are similar in importance.
- CORRECT. See the discussion above. Once you live in a sprawling suburb, the neighborhood design dictates how you must live. Your only way to avoid the effects of the policies that created the neighborhood is to leave. (The neighborhood itself and the lifestyle it forces are the “effects”.)
- This isn’t mentioned, but it’s unlikely the New Urbanists would agree, since their focus is on how suburbs force people to drive.
- Actually, the New Urbanists say that spatial configuration is influenced by zoning policies.
- “Personal values should not affect the way neighborhoods are designed”. That’s an extreme, insane statement. On the LSAT, you must take statements literally. This would mean that no personal values should go into neighborhood design. Not even New Urbanist personal values!
Need help with RC? → Try the RC Mastery Seminar
Solve hard passages quickly