A policy argument claims that increasing public transit funding will reduce crime because people will travel less by car. The assumption underlying this argument is:

• A. Transit funding directly reduces car travel enough to affect crime rates.
• B. Car travel has no relation to crime.
• C. The reduction in car travel will directly reduce crime without considering other factors.
• D. Transit funding will reduce taxes.

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is about hidden assumptions in a policy argument: for the conclusion to follow, there must be a direct link from the proposed intermediate effect to the final outcome. Here, the argument rests on the intermediate change—people travel less by car due to more transit funding—and claims this will reduce crime. The assumption needed is that this reduction in car travel will directly lead to lower crime, and that no other factors interfere with or counteract that link. In other words, there is a straightforward causal path from less car travel to less crime, without considering other variables that could influence crime rates (policing, unemployment, substitute behaviors, etc.).

Why this fits best: it isolates the specific mechanism the argument relies on and highlights what must be true for the conclusion to hold. The other possibilities shift the mechanism or introduce unrelated effects (like funding directly reducing crime, or crime being unrelated to car travel, or funding affecting taxes), which aren’t the assumed driver of the conclusion.