abhijeetjha wrote:
Chiranjeev I am little confused post your explanation...
Actually, it is good to be confused. Confusion is the first step to learning
abhijeetjha wrote:
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..
Actually, your reasoning for discarding option D is not sound. Let me address that below.
abhijeetjha wrote:
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 .....
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.
abhijeetjha wrote:
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
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
_________________