The postal service is badly mismanaged. Forty years ago, : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 09 Dec 2016, 21:00

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The postal service is badly mismanaged. Forty years ago,

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2006, 06:45
I looked at this question again and got the same answer as last time, which differs from the OA. I insist that the correct answer is C. Here's my previous post in case anybody is interested.

HongHu wrote:
gmataquaguy wrote:
HongHu wrote:
Fact: The price has increased. The speed and reliability of service has decreased.
Conclusion: It is mismanaged.

(A) The volume of mail handled by the postal service has increased dramatically over the last forty years.
Increase in volume provide another reason why it is more expensive and slower to get mail, other than mismanagement. Weakens.

(B) Unprecedented increases in the cost of fuel for trucks and planes have put severe upward pressures on postal delivery costs.
Increase in cost offers alternative explaination about why the price is higher. Weakens.

(C) Private delivery services usually charge more than does the postal service for comparable delivery charges.
It says nothing why postal service is worse today then before. NOT weaken.

(D) The average delivery time for a first-class letter four decades ago was actually slightly longer than it is today.
It rebuts the facts upon which the conclusion based, and thus weakens the conclusion.

(E) The average level of consumer prices overall has increased more than 300 percent over the last forty years.
Offers alternative explanation of increase in price other than mismanagement. Weakens.

Therefore C.

HongHu,
The OA is E. This makes sense coz 300% = 3 fold but the postal service costs went up by 10 fold.

But now the question is why does C, D not weaken the argument. I see why/how C weakens the argument [see my explanation].

But why is D wrong. To weaken a conclusion, one shouldnt "refute" the premise upon which the argument is based. You bring outside information that weakens the author's assumption.

Can someone explain why "D" weakens the conclusion. I dont see how.

Hmmm I disagree with the OA. Sure 3 fold is not 10 fold but it offers a partial explanation. It doesn't totally overturns the argument, but weakens it. (If 3 fold doesn't weaken, will 5 fold weaken it? 8 fold? Where is this magic point? I'd say as long as the overall price increases it weakens the argument to a certain degree.)

D also weakens the argument about mismanagement because it weakens one of the fact that the argument relies upon.

_________________

Keep on asking, and it will be given you;
keep on seeking, and you will find;
keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5238
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 365 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2006, 06:59
I think C, D, and E are all valid answers
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2006, 07:20
HongHu wrote:
I looked at this question again and got the same answer as last time, which differs from the OA. I insist that the correct answer is C. Here's my previous post in case anybody is interested.

HongHu wrote:
gmataquaguy wrote:
HongHu wrote:
Fact: The price has increased. The speed and reliability of service has decreased.
Conclusion: It is mismanaged.

(A) The volume of mail handled by the postal service has increased dramatically over the last forty years.
Increase in volume provide another reason why it is more expensive and slower to get mail, other than mismanagement. Weakens.

(B) Unprecedented increases in the cost of fuel for trucks and planes have put severe upward pressures on postal delivery costs.
Increase in cost offers alternative explaination about why the price is higher. Weakens.

(C) Private delivery services usually charge more than does the postal service for comparable delivery charges.
It says nothing why postal service is worse today then before. NOT weaken.

(D) The average delivery time for a first-class letter four decades ago was actually slightly longer than it is today.
It rebuts the facts upon which the conclusion based, and thus weakens the conclusion.

(E) The average level of consumer prices overall has increased more than 300 percent over the last forty years.
Offers alternative explanation of increase in price other than mismanagement. Weakens.

Therefore C.

HongHu,
The OA is E. This makes sense coz 300% = 3 fold but the postal service costs went up by 10 fold.

But now the question is why does C, D not weaken the argument. I see why/how C weakens the argument [see my explanation].

But why is D wrong. To weaken a conclusion, one shouldnt "refute" the premise upon which the argument is based. You bring outside information that weakens the author's assumption.

Can someone explain why "D" weakens the conclusion. I dont see how.

Hmmm I disagree with the OA. Sure 3 fold is not 10 fold but it offers a partial explanation. It doesn't totally overturns the argument, but weakens it. (If 3 fold doesn't weaken, will 5 fold weaken it? 8 fold? Where is this magic point? I'd say as long as the overall price increases it weakens the argument to a certain degree.)

D also weakens the argument about mismanagement because it weakens one of the fact that the argument relies upon.

I think 'E' is the right answer here... as it talks about average consumer price. Which is totally open ended here there is a room for ambiquity...

This statement adds no value.. We are comparing apples (average figures) to oranges (specific to PS)...

So I would stick to the OE.. 'E' doesn't weeken the argument by remaining neutral...

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 23 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The postal service is badly mismanaged. Forty years ago, 12 02 Sep 2011, 08:09
1 The postal service is badly mismanaged. Forty years ago, 3 29 Apr 2010, 14:03
1 The postal service is badly mismanaged. Forty years ago, 16 26 Jul 2009, 04:51
7 The postal service is badly mismanaged. Forty years ago, 11 30 Jan 2008, 06:15
The postal service is badly mismanaged. Forty years ago, 3 16 Mar 2007, 14:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by