i am having problems in eliminating ans.option B.
If we negate it,
the commuters will face significant hardhips in using the bridge..
bcz of tht they wont use the bridge and revenue wont b generated as per the conclusion..
please help me out with it..
Actually Governor is assuming that over one million vehicles are using the bridge so
if he collects $1 from each of them then he would have enough funds to repair bridge.
If you negate C, it would be :
The toll will
induce some commuters to use mass transit when traveling between the two boroughs.
So if enough number of vehicles will not use the bridge then he would not be able to collect enough fund for bridge repair.
Governor is not
considering the economical condition of commuters.
Raising fund might be the hardship on the commuters but he is not considering it.
Below is the explanation from Veritas
. It says B strengthens the argument.
Correct Answer: C
The argument claims that by charging a $1 toll, the city will raise the required $30 million in a month to cover the cost of repairs. Using the Assumption Negation Technique (ANT), we will find that by negating answer choice C (the toll WILL induce some commuters to use mass transit) the argument is no longer valid. C, if negated, would mean that commuters who would otherwise pay the toll will use mass transit and, therefore, not contribute to the toll revenues, causing the city to fall short of the governor's prediction. Answer A is irrelevant. While tragic, the collapse of the bridge need not be assumed for the argument to be valid. While answer choice B strengthens the governor's argument, it is not an assumption that the argument is dependent upon. In answer choice D, the subsequent capacity of the bridge is irrelevant as to whether the toll will be able to raise enough money. While choice E helps the governor's case, it is not necessarily a required assumption of the argument. We do not care why the residents use the bridge, but whether they will use it at all after the toll is implemented.