This question tests a basic transportation planning idea: how road hierarchy (expressway down to local street) trades off against accessibility (how easily vehicles can get on and off a road). Let's go through the marked lines one by one.
- P: This line stays close to flat across the accessibility range, suggesting road hierarchy barely changes with accessibility. Real road networks do not behave this way: an expressway and a local street clearly differ hugely in both function and accessibility, so a flat line does not fit.
- Q: This traces only a short, steep drop concentrated near the low-accessibility end of the graph, so it does not represent the relationship across the practical range from low to high accessibility that the question asks about.
- R: This line rises from lower-left to upper-right, meaning hierarchy would increase as accessibility increases. That is backwards: real expressways, at the top of the hierarchy, are built with restricted access, not high access, so a rising line points the wrong way entirely.
- S: This line falls steadily from high hierarchy at low accessibility down to low hierarchy at high accessibility, matching the standard planning principle that higher-order roads are designed for mobility and kept low on accessibility, while lower-order roads are designed for accessibility and sit low in the hierarchy.
The functional classification of roads is built exactly on this inverse relationship: as a road's job shifts from moving through-traffic to serving property access, its position in the hierarchy drops. That is the pattern line S shows.
Let's summarize:
- Road hierarchy and road accessibility move in opposite directions: higher hierarchy means lower accessibility, and vice versa.
- A flat line (P) or a rising line (R) both contradict this principle; only a consistently falling line fits.
So the line that correctly represents the relationship is S.