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.
Engineer1D. 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)