Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
31 Jan 2018, 06:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
Got this wrong, but immediately realized my mistake.
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. - maintaining is irrelevant; passage talks of a solution.
b. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes. - Correct by POE.
c. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away. - rural is irrelevant as the passage talks of major cities.
d. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service. - Strengthener; therefore, unlikely to be used by opponents.
e. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights. - Strengthener; therefore, unlikely to be used by opponents.
Source: Veri prep
Regards
Louis
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. - maintaining is irrelevant; passage talks of a solution.
b. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes. - Correct by POE.
c. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away. - rural is irrelevant as the passage talks of major cities.
d. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service. - Strengthener; therefore, unlikely to be used by opponents.
e. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights. - Strengthener; therefore, unlikely to be used by opponents.
Source: Veri prep
Regards
Louis
AdityaHongunti
30 Oct 2018, 04:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
TGC
VeritasKarishma @VeritasPrep GMATNinja
The stimulus provides us no info about the number of passaengers likely to use trains so how can B be a possible weakener as it talks about per capita . If it were that high speed trains would cause more pollution then it would have been likely. But "per capita" takes it too far. I can say instead that the potential ppl using trains are in total fewer than those using planes.
The "per capita term" is what made me eliminate B.
Option E seems more plausible to me as it specifies amount (large propportion) . Also it addresses the distance point . Though i still am not convinced with this answer too...
Please explain
mikemcgarry chetan2u DmitryFarber
31 Oct 2018, 01:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
We don't need to know anything about the number of passengers. The point of B is that even if we get people to trains, there won't be a reduction in pollution, which is one of the two stated goals. If no one switches, obviously nothing will happen (ignoring the pollution from construction), and if people DO switch, it would be worse. Basically, if trains cause 10 units of pollution per person and planes cause 9, then each person who switches will increase pollution by 1 unit, regardless of the scale.
As for E, it does the opposite of what we want. If many people are already traveling these short distances, then there is a large potential market for the trains and they can have their intended effect (assuming B is not true). If people were only flying LONGER distances, then perhaps no one would find it practical to switch to the train.
As for E, it does the opposite of what we want. If many people are already traveling these short distances, then there is a large potential market for the trains and they can have their intended effect (assuming B is not true). If people were only flying LONGER distances, then perhaps no one would find it practical to switch to the train.
