How will the right answer fit in terms of support and conclusion?

Only the right answer will call out why this support doesn’t establish this conclusion.

Highlight the main conclusion in the passage, if there is one:

if we want there to be even fewer parking violations, the fines should be raised again.

Official: [BACKGROUND]. [SUPPORT]. Hence, [CONCLUSION].

You recognized this author is claiming cause-and-effect, right? They’re saying the higher fines caused the drop in parking violations. But just because violations are down doesn’t mean the higher fines are the cause. The right answer will call that out.

Map the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage:

(A) takes a possible effect of a reduction…

Stop. The passage didn’t mention any “effect” of the reduction. The reduction in violations was the effect.

(B) …will reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time

The author doesn’t make that comparison, or say they’ll go down “by 50 percent” or more. That’s mischaracterizing the author’s argument.

(C) fails to take into account the financial benefits…

The argument is only trying to establish that raising the fines will make violations go down further. Info about any other “benefits” is adding something new that the passage doesn’t mention, and isn’t clearly relevant based only on common sense.

(D) …people who park their cars illegally…

…are never mentioned. This answer is totally changing the subject, and doesn’t relate to whether the higher fines caused the drop in parking violations.

(E) …due to the availability of additional parking spaces

Is that a plausible alternative cause I hear? Why yes, yes it is. This answer is calling out that there could be other causes of the drop in parking violations that the author didn’t address. Love that.

(E) is the correct answer.