Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 06:34 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 06:34
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
avatar
louisbharnabas
Joined: 29 Dec 2016
Last visit: 09 Mar 2024
Posts: 25
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 177
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
WE:Supply Chain Management (Energy)
Posts: 25
Kudos: 13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
AdityaHongunti
Joined: 20 Sep 2016
Last visit: 31 Mar 2021
Posts: 551
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 632
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.6
WE:Operations (Consumer Packaged Goods)
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,564
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
arya251294
Joined: 03 Jan 2019
Last visit: 16 Mar 2024
Posts: 188
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 368
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 188
Kudos: 57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TGC
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?


A. In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.

C. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.

D. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.

E. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.

Why I believe C is wrong is that the proposal talks about providing train services between major cities.
The question stem asks us to look for an explanation that opponents of this proposal can use, so now if opponents start talking about the majority of travelers from the rural cities, then they(opponents) are not attacking the actual proposal which talks about connecting major cities in order to address congestion and pollution.
avatar
Engineer1
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
Last visit: 15 Jun 2025
Posts: 201
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 457
Location: United States (IN)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Posts: 201
Kudos: 656
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TGC
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?


A. In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.

C. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.

D. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.

E. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.

KarishmaB GMATNinja GMATNinjaTWO MartyMurray
Can you (or anyone) please post an official or expert explanation?

I was stuck between B and C.

My first choice was B, but I got confused when I read C. Are these reasons below to eliminate C correct?

C - Majority and not some or few or percentage of passengers in the answer choice seemed like a good start. But C is for distances > 800 miles, whereas the argument is trying to mitigate congestion and pollution due to flights that operate between destinations 300 to 800 miles apart. (So out of scope??)

Moreover, it only considers passengers departing from rural areas, whereas the argument talks about major cities. (so, irrelevant?)
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,003
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,003
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TGC
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?


A. In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.

C. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.

D. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.

E. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.

Problem: airport congestion and the pollution
Assumed solution for congestion: Expand existing airports
Cheaper & Better Plan as per argument: high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart
Aim of the plan: reduce congestion and pollution

We have to weaken the plan i.e. the plan may not achieve its goal.

A. In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.

Irrelevant. We need to reduce congestion, not maintain the current levels. So Out of scope for us.

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.

Problem. If the trains cause more pollution per passenger, we are not "reducing pollution." In fact we are doing the opposite. The plan does not achieve its aim. Certainly weakens our plan.

C. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.


This is talking about rural airports. We are talking about a plan of running trains to reduce congestion and pollution in congested airports connecting major cities. Hence, this is out of scope for us.
If it did not talk about 'rural' airports but the congested airports, I would still need to see "almost all" for this to weaken the plan. Majority just means more than 50%. It could be 60% say. A plan of a 40% reduction in traffic could still work very well.
But, mind you, at the end of the day, it will depend on the other options.
Engineer1

D. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.


New airports are irrelevant.

E. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.

Helps our plan.

Answer (B)
User avatar
RandomUuser
Joined: 13 May 2021
Last visit: 22 Dec 2023
Posts: 12
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 12
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Please help clearing the confusion between Option B and Option C
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,564
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RandomUuser

Can you tell us what's bothering you about these? Both choices have been addressed in detail, so we'd need to know what you're seeing.
User avatar
Junnaruse
Joined: 31 Oct 2022
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 5
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
C is incorrect because the argument doen't give a damn weather people will use the train or airport. The argument is about pollution and traffic congestion in airports.
User avatar
Ved22
Joined: 18 Oct 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 78
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 75
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21
Schools: ISB '21
Posts: 78
Kudos: 24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello Navinag,

C is incorrect. The option states for use cases in which people are traveling over 800 km, but the premise is concerned only about 200-800kms
navinag
targetgmatchotu
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep

C seems more likely than B.
B talks about the pollution created by high-speed trains versus the planes, both in normal mode of operation. But the stem talks about the pollution created by planes congesting the airport which would result in higher pollution per passenger than by the planes in normal mode of operation. So, 'B' doesn't weaken it a whole lot. However, if C is true, then the plan will be ineffective in reducing the airport traffic as most most people are flying to cities more than 800 km away, thereby weakening the proposal.
User avatar
A_Nishith
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 455
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 455
Kudos: 199
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Argument Breakdown:
Claim: A cost-effective solution to airport congestion and pollution is to introduce high-speed train service between major cities 300-800 kilometers apart.
Support: This would reduce both the cost and the number of airplanes contributing to congestion and pollution.
The question asks for a piece of evidence that opponents could use to object to the plan.

Option Analysis:
A. In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
This option focuses on repairs to maintain the current levels of congestion. However, it does not directly challenge the high-speed train plan or its cost-effectiveness or its potential to reduce pollution. It doesn’t undermine the proposed benefits of the plan.

Not a strong objection to the high-speed train plan.

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such a plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
This is a strong objection. If high-speed trains actually cause more pollution per passenger than airplanes, the plan’s effectiveness in reducing pollution would be undermined, which directly contradicts one of the key benefits of the plan (reducing pollution).

Strong objection, as it directly challenges the environmental benefits of the plan.

C. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
This suggests that high-speed trains wouldn’t be useful for many rural passengers who fly to cities over 800 kilometers away, which could weaken the overall impact of the plan. However, the plan targets major cities within the 300-800 kilometer range, so this doesn’t entirely invalidate the plan but limits its scope.

Moderate objection, but it doesn’t strongly challenge the plan’s effectiveness for major cities.

D. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
This option doesn’t directly challenge the cost-effectiveness or pollution-reducing claims of the plan. It simply points out that some areas without train service are getting new airports, but it doesn’t negate the advantages of reducing congestion in cities where high-speed trains would operate.

Weak objection, as it doesn’t directly address the plan’s claims.

E. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
This option supports the plan rather than opposes it. If many passengers are taking short-distance flights, the high-speed trains could serve as a viable alternative, reducing the need for these short-distance flights and alleviating congestion.

Not an objection, and might even strengthen the plan.

Correct Answer: B
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
189 posts