The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line, and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere. The train would be a fixed linear system, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes. Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist. to decrease in the next few years.
Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the argument presented above?
(A) Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.
(B) Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.
(C) Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train's stations would be.
(D) The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.
(E) For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.
The main argument of this blurb is that a sufficient market for the train will not exist mainly due to the fact that the train would be a fixed linear system, where as planes, cars and buses do not rely on the fixed linear system.
To weaken this argument IMO you need to state that planes cars and buses do not always rely on the free wheeler system/ or the fact that train would not all be a fixed linear system.
(C) weakens b/c it says that planes are also somewhat fixed as they can only be allowed to fly in b/w airports.
(A) tells us that trains are guided mechanically which could prove as an advantage to other systems, but it does not change that fact that it is still relying on a fixed linear system which is far inferior than a free wheeler system.
If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, Thanks