A certain mayor has proposed a fee of five dollars per day on private

The mayor concludes that the proposed fee of five dollars per day on private vehicles entering the city will alleviate the city's traffic congestion.

How does the mayor reach that conclusion?

• "The fee will exceed the cost of round-trip bus fare from many nearby points" - So it will be cheaper to take the bus than to take your car and pay the fee.
• According to the mayor, since the bus is the cheaper option, "many people will switch from using their cars to using the bus."
• If many people switch from using their cars to using the bus, that should alleviate the city's traffic congestion (fewer vehicles on the roads).

The mayor believes that people will choose the cheaper option. Is that necessarily the case? Maybe there are other factors besides cost that affect commuters' transportation decisions.

We are looking for evidence that the mayor's logic is flawed:


If this is true, then people would have even greater financial incentive to take the bus. This would make the mayor's plan more likely to succeed. If gas prices were going to decrease, then the mayor might have a problem. As is, choice (A) does not describe a flaw in the mayor's reasoning. Eliminate (A).


If the fee is implemented, the bus will certainly be the cheaper option. According to the mayor, this financial incentive will cause people to opt for the bus instead of taking their own private vehicles.

But choice (B) tells us that taking a private vehicle is ALREADY considerably more expensive than taking the bus. So the existing CONSIDERABLE financial incentive to take the bus is not enough to alleviate traffic. In that case, why should we expect that a small increase in the financial incentive will make people switch to the bus?

Sure, the $5 fee might be enough to persuade some people to switch to the bus. Everyone has their own "price point" for taking their own vehicle. Slightly increasing the cost of commuting by private vehicle might be enough to push some people over the edge.

But the mayor's entire argument rests on the power of financial incentive. Choice (B) shows that traffic congestion exists despite considerable financial incentive. This suggests that an incremental increase to the financial incentive will not be enough to convince MANY drivers to take the bus. Choice (B) doesn't prove that the mayor's plan will fail, but it certainly exposes a flaw in the mayor's reasoning. Keep (B).


The mayor doesn't care about people who already ride the bus. Will people who currently drive private vehicles switch to the bus if a $5 fee is implemented? Choice (C) does not provide evidence either way, so eliminate (C).


Choice (D) tells us why many commuters oppose the mayor's plan. But commuters' opinion of the plan is irrelevant. If the plan is implemented, will many drivers switch to the bus (regardless of whether they are happy about it)? If so, then the mayor's plan will be a success. Choice (D) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.


Obviously the mayor's plan will not affect the 20% who live in the city and drive their own vehicles. If this percentage were much higher, then (E) might demonstrate a flaw in the mayor's reasoning. But if only 20% fall into this category, then the fee will likely affect a large chunk of drivers from outside the city. If anything, this actually supports the mayor's reasoning. Eliminate (E).

(B) is the best answer.
_________________

Actually, it is good to be confused. Confusion is the first step to learning



Actually, your reasoning for discarding option D is not sound. Let me address that below.



Option D says many people opposing the plan prefer traffic congestion over five dollar fee. Right?

Now, suppose if five dollar fee is initiated, would these people drive cars or use buses?

The answer is: We don't know.

We only know that these people prefer current situation of high traffic than a five dollar fee proposed by the Mayor. But what would happen if they are asked to pay five dollar fee? Do we know? No.



How can we say that these people will not take the bus? Remember option D is talking about (Traffic congestion vs five dollar fee) and NOT (comfort of car vs five dollar fee).

On the contrary, since these people are so much unwilling to pay five dollar fee, then in case Mayor's plan is instituted, they will probably be the first one to drop their cars and switch to buses. In this case, option D rather seems to support the Mayor's plan since it talks about a category of people who'll likely behave per Mayor's plan.

However, I would not go this far to suggest that option D supports Mayor's plan.

The best way to look at option D is in relation to the argument given.

What is the mayor's plan?
Five dollar fee for pvt vehicles (X) ---> fee will exceed the cost of round trip bus fare ----> most people will switch to bus ---> Traffic congestion will ease (Y)

What is option D?
Many people prefer (Not of Y) over X i.e. traffic congestion over five dollar fee. In other words, these people prefer current situation over Mayor's plan. Right? In the current situation, we have traffic congestion and no fee.

Now, my point was that if many or all people don't want your plan, it does not indicate a flaw in your reasoning. Here, it is important to understand what we mean by reasoning. Reasoning is simple: How premises lead to the conclusion?

So, if Mayor's plan is that five dollar fee will lead to reduction in traffic congestion, then a flaw needs to indicate that five dollar fee will not lead to reduction in traffic congestion. This is what option B does.

Option B breaks this link in Mayor's reasoning: fee will exceed the cost of round trip bus fare ----> most people will switch to bus

Option B says that the cost of taking a private vehicle is already greater than the cost of round trip fare. It is already higher and people have not switched to buses. Right? So, Mayor's reasoning is incorrect.

On the other hand, option D just talks about preferences of people.

For example: if Indian PM Manmohan Singh says that making him the finance minister will lead to higher economic growth in the country.

Then, if everyone says that they do not want to make him finance minister and are happy with current economic growth, this fact is not a flaw in his reasoning.

A flaw should indicate that even after making him the finance minister, the economic growth will not be higher.

Does it help?

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

A certain mayor has proposed a fee of five dollars per day on private vehicles entering the city, claiming that the fee will alleviate the city's traffic congestion.
The next part states the reason why the major proposed such fee.
The mayor reasons that, since the fee will exceed the cost of round-trip bus fare from many nearby points, many people will switch from using their cars to using the bus.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the mayor's reasoning is flawed?

b) The cost of parking fees already makes it considerable more expensive for most people to take a private vehicle into the city than to take a bus.
The major says the the plan will be successful because the new costs will exceed "the cost of round-trip bus fare", B states that the cost of taking a bus is already LOWER than driving a private car; so its reasoning "the plan will be successful because will make the alternative (the bus) cheaper" is flawed.

d) Many commuters opposing the mayor's plan have indicated that they would rather endure traffic congestion than pay a five dollar per day fee.
Even if this is true, the reasoning of the major is legit. The question asks for the best evidence that the mayor's reasoning is flawed, so the correct answer will address a point of his argument. Given his argument : "the plan will be successful because will make the alternative (the bus) cheaper"; and D : "Many commuters would rather endure traffic congestion" I cannot say that his reasoning is flawed. I can say maybe that the plan will not be very successful (as some commuters will use cars) , but his reasoning still sounds good to me.

The answer is cleary B as the mayor predicts to solve traffic congestion problem via implementing a fee on city enterance, yet the money or cost will not make any sense to car owners because the parking fees are already high making car expense more expensive than bus fares.

The reason why i thought B was the right answer was : If high parking fees hasn't been able to change people's mind to switch to bus then another 5 dollars is not gonna make them do so ..

This was the reason i choose B .. and B is the right answer. However i m not too sure if my reasoning is correct.
This is a Gmat prep Q and therefore there is o explanation given there

I totally fell on the trap on this one so here is my retrospective analysis.

The key was recognizing that it is a CAUSE and EFFECT relationship. The mayor's plan is the increasing tax will result in decreased city traffic congestion.

A) Gasoline prices make it expensive to take the private vehicle into the city. However, this almost strengthens the argument as it will help if less people will go AND there is a fee as well.
B) I totally missed out on this at first because I did not understand WHY a discussion of parking fee would be relevant. However, again with the cause and effect questions, we should be on the look out for alternative reasons for the effect or other causes of the effect. This choice states that the cost of parking is already more expensive than bus costs and people are still going into the city. As a result, adding the fee would not have any impact.

C) this is not relevant because the conculsion is concerned about the people driving into the city
D) this seemed like a good choice at first but on further analysis realized that this is not really relevant. If MANY people are saying that they would rather endure the traffic, then there are still SOME people are not saying this. The mayor's plan would not have to include ALL people. The arugment just says "many people will switch to buses."
E) this is not relevant because the conculsion is concerned about the people driving into the city, not the ones living in the city.

We are looking for the flaw in the reasoning. This argument is the plan format in which a person introduces a plan as a solution to a problem. The assumption in these types of arguments is that the plan will work without creating new difficulties. Therefore to find the flaw, we are looking for an answer choice that gives a reason why the plan won't work. In this case the plan is the increase fees beyond the cost of a bus trip to encourage commuters to use the bus.

A certain mayor has proposed a fee of five dollars per day on private vehicles entering the city, claiming that the fee will alleviate the city's traffic congestion. The mayor reasons that, since the fee will exceed the cost of round-trip bus fare from many nearby points, many people will switch from using their cars to using the bus.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the mayor's reasoning is flawed?
a) Projected increases in the price of gasoline will increase the cost of taking private vehicle into the city.
it strengthens the mayor's argument that the increasing cost of taking private vehicle will exceed the cost of round trip bus fare

b) The cost of parking fees already makes it considerable more expensive for most people to take a private vehicle into the city than to take a bus.
Correct. It proves that the mayor's argument is flaw. The cost of taking private vehicle into the city has already exceeded the cost of round trip bus fare, but city's traffic congestion issue has not been solved

c) Most of the people currently riding the bus do not own private vehicles.
it does not help to answer if the cost of taking private car into the city increase, the car's owner will switch to use bus

d) Many commuters opposing the mayor's plan have indicated that they would rather endure traffic congestion than pay a five dollar per day fee.
its not relevant to answer if having to pay 5 dollar per day fee will prevent the private car owners from driving car into the city

e) During the average workday, private vehicles owned and operated by people living within the city account for twenty percent of the city's traffic congestion.
it helps to prove that the mayor's argument is not strong, as the city's traffic congestion issue is partly not due to the private car from outside of the city

Stuck between B and D can someone explain! Thanks in advance

conclusion:
people will switch from using their cars to using the bus.

premise:
the fee will exceed the cost of round-trip bus fare from many nearby points

b) The cost of parking fees already makes it considerable more expensive for most people to take a private vehicle into the city than to take a bus.
according to this ....current scenario is that PARKING FEES is more expensive than bus fare cost==>still people are choosing to go by private vehicles...in short EXTRA COST will not affect.
hence this clearly weakens the conclusion.

option D:
Many commuters opposing the mayor's plan have indicated that they would rather endure traffic congestion than pay a five
dollar per day fee.
IN THIS option it talks about only those commuters who are opposing the mayors plan==>so this will not weaken anyhow..as this is not considering the complete scenario.

hope it helps

I think the explanations above by Zarrolou and blueseas explain why D is incorrect.

I just wanted to add one more thing.

If the author is concluding that X will lead to Y. You can point out a flaw only by saying that X may/will not lead to Y.

You cannot say that the author's reasoning is flawed because you do not even want Y or it is quite difficult to achieve X. You have to directly attack what he is saying.

The Mayor's claim is:

the fee will alleviate the city's traffic congestion. {X (the fee) will lead to Y (less traffic congestion)}

Option D says
Many commuters opposing the mayor's plan have indicated that they would rather endure traffic congestion than pay a five dollar per day fee {We don't prefer Y over X}

Even if option D said that
Everyone has indicated that they would rather endure traffic congestion than pay a five dollar per day fee

In this case, option D will be wrong. The mayor has not considered people's preferences but his "reasoning" to achieve a certain objective (less congestion) is still fine.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Chiranjeev I am little confused post your explanation...Though i know that the answer is very much B , the only reason i discarded D is because of the quantifying word "MANY"...Dont we need to consider the feasibility of the application of a reasoning to point whether its flawed or not ... Even in option B we are very much considering the success of the plan to determine whether the mayor's reasoning will result in a successful application or not...to find a flaw in this reasoning the only way it can be done is by evaluating its practical application..In option D as it says "Many commuters opposing the mayor's plan have indicated that they would rather endure traffic congestion than pay a five dollar per day fee"...So even if those opposing actually dont take bus and endure traffic congestion , still we will be left with MANY or SOME commuters who can fall prey to Mayor's reasoning ..So obviously it is not pointing out the flaw in Mayor's reasoning .....

I will try to explain my stream of thoughts, should you find something wrong, please correct me!!!
Conclusion: the fee will alleviate the city’s traffic congestion
Premises: the fee will exceed the
cost of round-trip bus fare from many nearby points,
many people will switch from using their cars to using
the bus.
Assumption: people will switch from car to bus for economical reason, i.e. people select their means of transport on the basis of the cost they face in each choice

A) This actually strengthen the conclusion . Therefore S
B) This undermines the faulty assumption for the conclusion: . Since a private vehicle is
already more expensive than a bus in the city and nonetheless people continue to use private cars and increase traffic, cost is not the main driver in people's choice about mobility in the city, therefore W
C) The conclusion is not about people already using buses, but about people using private vehicle. So Irrelevant on the conclusion I
D) The answer is about people opposing to the major, but it is not related and has no effect on the conclusion which is about the effectiveness of the fee in reducing traffic congestion into the city. Therefore Irrelevant I
E) This answer is very tempting since it brings along piece of evidence about private vehicles and it mimics the language in the conclusion, but ultimately it is about private vehicles operated by people living in the city, therefore it doesn't tell us something about the effect of the fee, which will be for people entering the city.

So answer is B.

If you find this post helpful, please kudos....

In the interest of fleshing out the reasoning a bit here, you can indeed simplify the argument as follows:

(P1) If driving a car costs more than taking the bus --> many people will switch from cars to buses
(P2) The proposed fee will make the cost of driving a car higher than busing.
(C) Therefore, the fee will lead people to switch from cars to buses.

Now, consider the answer choices with respect to the argument.
(A) Gas prices are irrelevant. They may make the fee superfluous, but they do not really undermine the reasoning that the fee would have its intended effect.
(B) If it's already considerably more expensive to drive a car into the city, we have reason to doubt premise 1.
(C) Current bus riders are irrelevant. We're concerned about switching.
(D) Opinions about the fee do not affect whether or not it would have the intended effect.
(E) This fact has nothing to do with costs, so we can ignore it.

So, the answer that provides the best evidence the original argument is flawed is .

GMATNinja generis GMATNinjatwo VeritasPrepKarishma

Is it ok to think that I need to negate the conclusion for such Q types?

I need to come up with an answer choice that says: Many people will not switch from cars to bus because the cost of fare to travel nearby places in more in cars than bus.

B brings in an imp new factor: cost of parking. But (B) is is present tense and my conclusion is about future? Does not this nullify any impact on conclusion?

Why can not people preference in (D) replace parking in (B) to weaken the conclusion?
_________________

adkikani, when weakening an argument, you do not necessarily need to negate the conclusion. As long as the answer choice attacks the author's reasoning or evidence, then it weakens the author's argument.

For example, in this passage, the mayor's belief is based on costs: the fee will exceed the cost of round-trip bus far, so many people will switch from using cars to using the bus. We do not need to prove that the mayor is wrong. Instead, we simply need an answer choice that weakens the mayor's argument.

As for (D), this suggests that many commuters do not LIKE the plan. But regardless of their preferences, will the plan succeed in making many people switch from cars to buses?

See if that helps. If not, this question will be used as a QOTD next week, so stay tuned for further discussion!
_________________

(B) The cost of parking fees already makes it considerable more expensive for most people to take a private vehicle into the city than to take a bus.

while this works as a weakener by one line of reasoning...it can also work as something that supports the mayor's reasoning...
if people are already paying so much for parking, they might be reluctant to pay more in the form of an entry fee

what do you think?

(B) does not suggest that people are "already paying so much for parking." Rather, (B) suggests that, because of high parking fees, people already take the bus instead of driving.

Adding an additional fee will probably cause some people to switch to the bus, but if taking a private vehicle is already the "considerably-more-expensive" option, adding a $5 fee shouldn't really change things too much.
_________________

Stimulus:- The mayor reasons that fee will make taking private vehicles "expensive"

Correct Option B:- taking private vehicles is already "expensive" for most people.

Since it is already "expensive" to take out private vehicles what is the gaurantee that increased fee will result in many people switching to bus. Maybe there are other reasons due to which commuters prefer private vehicles regardless of quantum of fees.
_________________