|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 361
Location: Illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Please explain
Attachments
crimg.jpg [ 97.25 KiB | Viewed 233 times ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
It's b/w A and C but I'll go with C
B directly contradicts the statement
D and E just cannot be inferred
C is most conservative answer. Stem says "because the price of gasoline is still not prohibitive, the number of passengers using PT has fallen". This means that at a certain treshold, when gasoline prices are prohibitive, PT passengers will automatically rise. A assumes a directly proportional increase in PT passengers while the function might be one that starts increasing after a certain treshold as said by the stem.
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 361
Location: Illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: It's b/w A and C but I'll go with C
B directly contradicts the statement
D and E just cannot be inferred
C is most conservative answer. Stem says "because the price of gasoline is still not prohibitive, the number of passengers using PT has fallen". This means that at a certain treshold, when gasoline prices are prohibitive, PT passengers will automatically rise. A assumes a directly proportional increase in PT passengers while the function might be one that starts increasing after a certain treshold as said by the stem.
But if even if the price of gasoline becomes prohibitive, how can we say for sure that the number of passangers on train will rise? It may be possible that because of the further deterioration in other services on train, the ridership may further decline or it may remain constant. How can we make the price of the gasiline the sole criteria for increase or decrease in the ridership?
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
It is not the sole criterion which will increase ridership. However, it will be one of them. Hence, if it is one of the factors, holding all other factors constant, it then must increase ridership.
The stem says that, compounded to other reasons, since gas prices did not reach that prohibitive level, ridership has fallen. I believe that we can safely say that if gas prices reach that level, people should switch to public transports and increase its ridership.
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
I liked (C) as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 258
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
agree with C
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
Yes Got C. I had a bad weekend with lots of CR's getting  wrong so I am taking little more time to get back my confidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2004
Posts: 296
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
since gas prices have not reached prohibitive levels, mass transport decreasing
MTD -> NOT Gas Reached prohibitive levels
Contrapositive is:
Gas Reaches Prohibitive levels -> NOT MTD (C)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 196
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
C is my choice. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1031
Location: Florida
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
the whole paragraph is based on the fact that:
gas price below prohibitive level --> people will switch to their own transport.
C my choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
