Question 9

Sentence 5 should be deleted to improve the unity of the second paragraph.

Removing sentence 5 enhances the flow of the paragraph by allowing it to focus more directly on the historical context of bicycle lanes in New York City without introducing a sudden change in tone regarding the recent developments.

A) Sentence 3

Deleting sentence 3 would disrupt the historical timeline established in the paragraph. This sentence provides essential context about the 1970s resurgence of interest in bicycle lanes, which is crucial for understanding the evolution of bike lane policy in the city.

B) Sentence 4

Sentence 4 discusses the immediate backlash against the bike lanes constructed in the 1980s. Removing this sentence would lead to a lack of understanding of the challenges faced during that period, which is important for comprehending the overall narrative of bicycle lane development.

C) Sentence 5

Sentence 5 introduces a shift in focus by highlighting a recent change without adequately connecting it to the previous sentences. This makes it less relevant to the historical context being discussed, thus affecting the overall unity and coherence of the paragraph.

D) Sentence 6

Sentence 6 provides quantitative information about the extent of bike lane installation, which is critical for illustrating the scale of recent developments. Removing this sentence would omit important details about the current state of bike lanes in the city, weakening the paragraph's argument.

Conclusion

In conclusion, deleting sentence 5 is the most effective choice for improving the paragraph's unity, as it disrupts the historical narrative without adding relevant context. Other options, while they could be removed, serve to enhance the understanding of the challenges and developments surrounding bicycle lane policies in New York City. Maintaining a clear historical perspective is essential for the overall coherence of the paragraph.