Passage Summary: A city official wants to switch to a special rubber-based road material to make winter ice removal cheaper. However, the mayor argues that because the material itself is more expensive and the budget is capped, the city simply cannot afford the switch.

Conclusion: The road commissioner's plan to use rubberized asphalt is not financially viable for the city.

Reasoning: The city's road budget is fixed and cannot be increased, yet the rubberized asphalt suggested by the commissioner is more expensive than the standard asphalt currently used.

Analysis: The mayor's logic hits a wall because it ignores the possibility that the 'more expensive' asphalt might pay for itself through the very maintenance savings the commissioner mentioned. To make the argument stick, we must assume that the savings in the road-maintenance budget aren't enough to cover the higher price of the rubberized asphalt. Keep an eye out for an answer that bridges the gap between the initial purchase price and the total lifecycle cost of the roads. If the savings were massive, the plan could be feasible even with a fixed budget.