Motorists in a certain country frequently complain that traffic

Motorists in a certain country frequently complain that traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago.

1. Motorists frequently complain
2. What do they complain about?
3. They complain that traffic congestion – now is much worse than traffic congestion – 20 years ago

No real measure of how much traffic congestion there was 20 years ago exists,

There is no way to quantify the traffic congestion 20 years ago. (So, perhaps, it’s difficult to ascertain whether motorists’ complaint is justified)

but the motorists’ complaints are almost certainly unwarranted.

The “but” indicates a contrast. The contrast is that while it’s difficult to quantify traffic congestions 20 years ago (thus it’s difficult to ascertain how true the complaints are), the complaints are almost certainly unjustified.

(Since the author has taken a stand in contrast to what can be expected, I expect the author to support his point in the coming statements)

The country’s highway capacity has tripled in the last twenty years, thanks to a vigorous highway construction program, whereas the number of automobiles registered in the country has increased by only 75 percent.

This statement supports the author’s stand (the motorists’ complaints are almost certainly unwarranted).

This statement says that the highway capacity has grown to 3 times the capacity 20 years ago while the number of vehicles registered has grown to only 1.75 times its number 20 years ago.

(How does it support the author’s stand? The underlying logic is that since the growth in highway capacity is greater than the growth in the number of vehicles registered, there is more highway capacity now than there was 20 years ago per vehicle registered in the country. Thus, there should be less congestion now than there was 20 years ago.)

The GIST

1.Motorists complain that traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago.
2. The complaints are unjustified.
3. Why?
4. Because the highway capacity has grown to 3x the capacity 20 years ago while the number of automobiles registered has grown to 1.75x (less than 3x).

The GAPS

We find gaps by thinking how traffic congestion can be much worse now than it was 20 years ago despite the fact that highway capacity has grown at a faster rate than the number of registered automobiles.

Here are a few gaps that I could identify:

1. Perhaps, a lot of people are driving unregistered automobiles.
2. Perhaps, registered automobiles are driven much more now than they were 20 years ago (more traffic per automobile)
3. Perhaps, the number of scooters has increased to 10x in the last 20 years (scooters are not considered automobiles but can contribute to traffic congestion).
4. Perhaps, the additional highway capacity added in the last 20 years has been mainly along the routes that are not used much.
5. Perhaps, the non-highway capacity (inner roads in the cities) has not been expanded, resulting in traffic congestion inside the cities.

There can be more gaps in the argument. Can you think of any?





(A) Most automobile travel is local, and the networks of roads and streets in the country's settled areas have changed little over the last 20 years.

Correct. This option is around the last gap that I identified above. (Are you wondering whether I thought of the gap after understanding this option? Are you accusing me of cheating? No problem. I did cheat

If most automobile travel is along the network of roads and streets that haven’t grown in the last 20 years, we have a reason to believe that traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago.

Thus, the conclusion that the complaints are unwarranted stands weakened.

(I believe that some people reject this option, saying that this option strengthens the argument. This way of going wrong is quite frequent in arguments that follow the structure of this argument - Present X, Then, conclude X is not the case. X in this case is ‘traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago’.)

In such arguments, some people consider an option supporting X to be a strengthener. That’s wrong. If an option supports X, it goes against the conclusion that X is not the case. Thus, that option is a weakened.)

(B) Gasoline prices are high, and miles traveled per car per year have not changed much over the last 20 years.

Incorrect. This option is in line with the second gap I identified. (I didn’t cheat here )

However, this option strengthens the argument rather than weakens it. If miles traveled per car hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years, we have more reason to believe that the traffic congestion is NOT much worse now than it was 20 years ago.

(C) The country's urban centers have well-developed public transit systems that carry most of the people who commute into those centers.

Incorrect. This option talks about the present scenario (“have”). It says that country’s urban centers have good public transport systems. In such a case, people don’t need to use their own automobiles to travel. Thus, instead of several automobiles (in case people travel in private automobiles), we have a bus or a train. So, this option indicates that there is perhaps less congestion than possible.

Thus, this option doesn’t weaken the argument.

(D) The average age of automobiles registered in the country is lower now than it was 20 years ago.

Incorrect. This option has no impact on the argument.

Let’s first try to understand the meaning of this option statement. The option talks about the average age of automobiles registered in the country.

How do we calculate the average age of automobiles registered in the country?

We’ll sum the ages of all the automobiles registered in the country and divide this number by the number of automobiles registered in the country.

This average represents how old an average automobile registered in the country is. For example, the average age of 5 years means that automobiles are not very old (perhaps, the old vehicles are destroyed), whereas the average age of 15 years means that automobiles, on average, are quite old.

Is the average age of the automobiles, or how old the automobiles are, relevant to the argument?

Not at all.

(Not that it would matter, but it is worth noticing that the average age of vehicles doesn’t point to the number of vehicles on the road. The average age is a factor of how quickly old vehicles are discarded.)

(E) Radio stations have long been broadcasting regular traffic reports that inform motorists about traffic congestion.

Incorrect. Let’s consider the following statement:

E1: Motorists' perceptions about traffic congestion are mainly based on traffic reports published by credible sources.

E1 is a weakener. By suggesting that motorists’ complaint is based on some authentic source of information, this statement weakens the conclusion that their complaint is unwarranted.

However, option E has almost no impact since option E doesn’t say that

1. the traffic reports published by radio stations are credible.
2. the traffic reports published by radio stations DO NOT differ in terms of whether traffic congestion has increased. (If they differ, then perhaps motorists’ perception is mainly a result of their biased focus on reports saying that the congestion has increased) [It’s important to be aware that option E says traffic reports inform about traffic congestion. The information could be that there is no traffic congestion.]
3. motorists’ perception of traffic congestion is not influenced much more by subjective factors than by these reports.

We can notice that while option E triggers you into thinking along the lines of E1, E is very different from E1. While E1 is a good weakener, E has almost no impact.

Can anyone please write the premises and conclusion of this question? I did it twice and did it wrong in both attempts. I know the answer now but it's not satisfying me without knowing premises and conclusion

Premise: The country’s highway capacity has tripled in the last twenty years, thanks to a vigorous highway construction program, whereas the number of automobiles registered in the country has increased by only 75 percent.

Conclusion: The motorists’ complaints (that traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago) are almost certainly unwarranted.

Option A states a reason that the motorists' complain could be valid.

An easy one I guess

(A) Most automobile travel is local, and the networks of roads and streets in the country's settled areas have changed little over the last 20 years. So the motorists are actually traveling within the city and not on the highways. Hence, the argument stands weakened as the expansion of highway is doing no good to these motorists traveling within the city limits. This looks good and in line with our questions.

(B) Gasoline prices are high, and miles traveled per car per year have not changed much over the last 20 years.
Irrelevant. Does not in any way weaken the argument

(C) The country's urban centers have well-developed public transit systems that carry most of the people who commute into those centers.
Does not weaken. Irrelevant piece of information

(D) The average age of automobiles registered in the country is lower now than it was 20 years ago.
What has the average age got to do with traffic? Irrelevant

(E) Radio stations have long been broadcasting regular traffic reports that inform motorists about traffic congestion.
even if they inform about congestion, they do not help reduce it in any way..Irrelevant

Hence, A is the answer

The conclusion is :- The motorists' complaints that " traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago " are almost certainly unwarranted.
If we weaken it , it becomes :- The complaints are warranted and the traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago.

Option A says :- "Most automobile travel is local, and the networks of roads and streets in the country's settled areas have changed little over the last 20 years."
Since the areas where motorists travel dint change much although the country's highway capacity has tripled in the last twenty years, thanks to a vigorous highway construction program, motorists' complaints are warranted and the traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago.

Option A is the answer.

Hi,

If the miles traveled per car has remained the same and there is a 75% increase in automobiles, then indirectly it is telling us that congestion has increased. At least from mathematical point of view. So clearly, there is congestion and motorists complains aren't unwarranted. So in some way, this is also weakening the argument. Please suggest your opinion - experts.

Here's (B) again:


This means that the total number of miles traveled on the country’s roads has increased over the past 20 years, but it does not indicate that congestion has increased. In fact, it suggests the opposite. Consider the math: the country’s highways can accommodate three times as much traffic as they could 20 years ago. But the quantity of traffic has only increased by a factor of 1.75. That means there is actually less “traffic per highway capacity” today than there was 20 years ago. Eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

Dear Experts- Can someoe tell me why C is wrong? Is it just that it talks of urban centers thats why? Please explain the option in detail

The basis of the conclusion is that the capacity of the highways has increased much more than the number of automobiles has increased, which information leads the author to conclude that congestion must not really have increased.

Now, to determine whether choice (C) is correct, we need to determine what the effect of choice (C) is.

Choice (C) tells us that people can commute without using cars. If anything, that information confirms that congestion has not become worse, because, if people can commute without using cars, then they are not contributing to congestion when they commute.

So, while (C) does not clearly strengthen the argument, it is at least in line with what the author is saying, that motorists who believe that congestion is worse are mistaken.

A choice that is in line with the author's evidence or reasoning will not weaken the argument.

Hi, I had difficulty mapping the passage at first got it wrong twice, now I have a doubt about option e)

E. Radio stations have long been broadcasting regular traffic reports that inform motorists about traffic congestion.

(Bg) - motorists claim abt traffic................
(cp) - No data to support ................
(C) - Motorists claims are unwarranted
(Pr) - More highway construction & 75% increase in vehicles.

We have to weaken the (C) - Motorists claims are unwarranted.
By saying that they are not unwarranted i.e. traffic has actually increased.

(e) says - motorists get informed about traffic congestions --> So can't motorists use that info to claim that traffic is actually high?

OR DO WE HAVE TO STICK TO THE PREMISE SUPPORTING THIS CONCLUSION ABT THE HIGHWAY THING. I just thought that there can be other reason to support their claim that traffic is high which will in fact weaken the argument saying yes motorists were true traffic is actually high.

Let’s take another look at (E):


(E) tells us that radio stations have long given traffic reports to inform motorists. The problem is that we don’t know anything about the substance of these traffic reports. If the traffic reports confirm the motorists’ complaints and indicate that congestion is getting worse, then perhaps (E) would weaken the argument. But we don’t know for sure whether that is the case, and (E) doesn’t tell us about the substance of the traffic reports. It’s equally likely that the traffic reports indicate that there is equal or less congestion, and the motorists simply disagree with the reports.

In fact, all that (E) tells us is that radio stations broadcast traffic reports about traffic congestion. That does not weaken the argument in any way, so we can eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

Analysis: Gist is that motorists complain about the traffic congestion increase from 20 years ago. The author wants to convince us that the motorists' complaints are unwarranted (not acceptable). The reasoning is that the highways have tripled capacity while automobiles registered has increased by 75% (from 20 years ago figures). Some obvious gaps are that the motorists are complaining about traffic congestion in a certain country (including all roads and streets) whereas the authors reasoning uses highways only as the support for the conclusion. Another one is that the increase in automobiles that are registered have increased by 75% however there could be other vehicles that are not registered that could be contributing to the congestion.
Also I keep in mind that to weaken the conclusion of author the correct option should give us a reason why the motorists complaining is actually warranted. Phrasing it this way helps me analyse options quicker in such type of questions:

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Most automobile travel is local, and the networks of roads and streets in the country's settled areas have changed little over the last 20 years [so the travel is mostly local and the road types, different from highways as mentioned by author, have remained the same in past 20 years. This means that these roads capacity has remained virtually the same as the registered vehicles number has increased. This would be a good reason for the motorists claim if I was one of them!

(B) Gasoline prices are high, and miles traveled per car per year have not changed much over the last 20 years : Gas prices are high and miles traveled per car hasn't changed much signifies that the duration an automobile is on the road on average would also be similar to 20 years ago. This kind of supports the idea that congestion could be solved as the existing automobiles are not travelling more and thus contributing more to the congestion.

(C) The country's urban centers have well-developed public transit systems that carry most of the people who commute into those centers: This is not weakening at all, because public transit availability could mean that people shift from automobiles to public transport thus possibly reducing congestion. As the author this would be a good point to put up against the complaining motorists.

(D) The average age of automobiles registered in the country is lower now than it was 20 years ago: Average age of automobiles registered signifies the age of the automobile. How new or old it is. if the average age is lower now, it means that either the older cars have gone out of circulation (thus reducing number of cars and thus congestion) or people are just buying more new cars. However, this does not give us a clear indication of whether there are more automobiles or less.

(E) Radio stations have long been broadcasting regular traffic reports that inform motorists about traffic congestion: Informing about traffic congestion could mean either informing of presence of traffic congestion or that there is no traffic congestion. In the latter case, it would go against the motorists claims and could mean that there is less traffic congestion. As the option can give quite ambiguous outcomes, eliminated.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.