GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 17:07

### 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

# A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 658
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 08:33
6
1
7
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (01:57) correct 40% (02:00) wrong based on 838 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 4
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 12:50
1
targetgmatchotu wrote:
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.
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3414
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 13:26
navinag wrote:
targetgmatchotu wrote:
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.

No here we do not care of something over 800 km. is beyond the scope of the question.

_________________
Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 4
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 13:35
carcass wrote:
navinag wrote:
targetgmatchotu wrote:
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.

No here we do not care of something over 800 km. is beyond the scope of the question.

Would you please explain why you consider C to be out of scope ?
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3414
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 14:47
1
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 4
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2013, 20:28
1
carcass wrote:
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.

Re-reading the option choice "The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away" tells me that it talks about 'the majority of passengers departing from rural airports' which may form a very small percentage of overall passenger traffic incoming at the city airport. That'd invalidate this option, but definitely not the reason " we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over".

Any other thoughts anybody ?
Intern
Joined: 17 Nov 2012
Posts: 1
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 05:02
carcass wrote:
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.

Could you please explain why is D wrong
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 702
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 05:16
3
amitprakash09 wrote:
carcass wrote:
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.

Could you please explain why is D wrong

conclusion:
trains ==>this will reduce congestion ,reduce pollution...and they are also profitable.
now we have to weaken this conclusion.

option D says:
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
it is just stating fact ..that airports are in construction this has no effect on conlusion...

hope it helps.
_________________
When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment
Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 702
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2013, 05:18
2
carcass wrote:
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.

no this is not true.

option C is wrong because it is just talking about rural airports.....hence that option is not considering the full scenarios.(excluding airports from urban areas)
_________________
When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 93
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2013, 07:46
not able to understand why B is correct. It say that pollution per passenger is more for trains. So the argument assumes that number of passenger travelling in the train is more that that of plane. While generally this may be true, it may not be always true.

eg if there are 100 person travelling by train and 300 by airplane, then pollution by train may be less than plane. what am i missing here?
_________________
“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong.”
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3414
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2013, 09:42
2
ankur1901 wrote:
not able to understand why B is correct. It say that pollution per passenger is more for trains. So the argument assumes that number of passenger travelling in the train is more that that of plane. While generally this may be true, it may not be always true.

eg if there are 100 person travelling by train and 300 by airplane, then pollution by train may be less than plane. what am i missing here?

buyt here you are assuming a sort of information that you bring from the outside, from the real world.

You must weaken the argument according to the info IN the argument: the question if we have more passengers who use trains more than planes is not our concern in this precise moment.

hope this help
_________________
SVP
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1566
Concentration: Finance
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2014, 09:56
carcass wrote:
ankur1901 wrote:
not able to understand why B is correct. It say that pollution per passenger is more for trains. So the argument assumes that number of passenger travelling in the train is more that that of plane. While generally this may be true, it may not be always true.

eg if there are 100 person travelling by train and 300 by airplane, then pollution by train may be less than plane. what am i missing here?

buyt here you are assuming a sort of information that you bring from the outside, from the real world.

You must weaken the argument according to the info IN the argument: the question if we have more passengers who use trains more than planes is not our concern in this precise moment.

hope this help

Also 'rural' is a key word, that is not mentioned anywhere in stimulus. One fake move (or word on this case) and you're done

But still between B and C it is a close call. I personally like B better, but that's just me.
Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 167
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Oct 2014, 02:04
TGC wrote:
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

Tricky one.

The answer rely on the rural word, in order to see that answer B is good over C.

Why answer C is wrong: Imagine there are 100 people travelling. Perhaps only 1 is traveling through a rural airport! Therefore, 99 travel through a non-rural airport and perhaps they are travelling between 300 and 800 km!

_________________
Think outside the box
Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 4
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2014, 08:40
TGC wrote:
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

B States that high speed trains would cause more pollution per passenger than airplanes however, we do not know the no of passengers in airplanes vs in trains so we can't conclude which one does more overall pollution (if total passengers is lesser in trains and pollution per passenger is little more in trains then overall contribution to pollution might still be lower in case of trains than planes)

The author is assuming that most airplane passengers travel between 300 to 800 Kms hence, creating train service between 300 to 800 might decrease the pollution done by planes. Any option that undermines this assumption weakens the conclusion. C is doing so.
Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 47
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 09:59
1
PagalGuru wrote:
TGC wrote:
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

B States that high speed trains would cause more pollution per passenger than airplanes however, we do not know the no of passengers in airplanes vs in trains so we can't conclude which one does more overall pollution (if total passengers is lesser in trains and pollution per passenger is little more in trains then overall contribution to pollution might still be lower in case of trains than planes)

The author is assuming that most airplane passengers travel between 300 to 800 Kms hence, creating train service between 300 to 800 might decrease the pollution done by planes. Any option that undermines this assumption weakens the conclusion. C is doing so.

The most important word is option C is the Adjective" rural" and this makes this choice out of scope as the passage is talking about Major cities ( urban not the rural ones)
Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2015
Posts: 37
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: UFlorida '18, UFL '17
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 16:04
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.

Wrong : Seems out of Scope.No mention about the pollution that is caused or the congestion.

The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
Correct: This directly addresses as to why the plan would be opposed on the grounds that the pollution would increase.

The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Wrong: Please notice carefully.This talks about the majority of passengers from Rural airports not all airports.Thus lets say if we have 1000 urban airports and 100 rural airports then the argument would still hold true.

Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
Wrong: Out of scope.

A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Wrong : Out of scope
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2509
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2016, 20:17
TGC wrote:
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

I fell for C, and now I see why it is incorrect, yet I disagree with B, at least partially.

the argument says that to reduce congestion and the pollution, a train is needed. what if the people who travel from airports are not travelling between major cities in China?
I say that a more valid option such as: providing information that would prove that the congestion would continue is more appropriate.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2016, 11:55
Boil it down -New plan of high-speed train service would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and reduce the number of airplanes clogging and pollution
Type- Weaken

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes. Correct
C.The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away. - Incorrect -over 800 km is out of scope. Also we don't know rural airports constitute what percentage of total airports.
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Intern
Joined: 07 Apr 2016
Posts: 4
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2016, 12:28
I don't think B fits the bill!!

Reason: Only if the number of passengers are assumed to be equal for the plane and train, B could work.
Otherwise,
Let's assume for the trains the Pollution/Passenger is 20.
Similarly for the planes it's 10.
If the number of passengers for trains are 50, then total pollution level is 1000.
And if the number of passengers for planes are 200, the pollution level is 2000.

So planes could not be effective, even though pollution/passenger of train is higher than the plane.

Correct me if I am wrong.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2401
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2016, 20:02
Visage2c wrote:
I don't think B fits the bill!!

Reason: Only if the number of passengers are assumed to be equal for the plane and train, B could work.
Otherwise,
Let's assume for the trains the Pollution/Passenger is 20.
Similarly for the planes it's 10.
If the number of passengers for trains are 50, then total pollution level is 1000.
And if the number of passengers for planes are 200, the pollution level is 2000.

So planes could not be effective, even though pollution/passenger of train is higher than the plane.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Hi Visage2c ,
We need to weaken the argument that the construction of high-speed train service is a better plan than airport expansion.
Now as per your example , the total pollution caused by trains for 50 passengers is 1000 . But if airport expansion occurs and these passengers use airplanes instead of high-speed train then the total pollution caused by these 50 people would drop to 500 .
So that indeed weakens the plan.

Hope this helps!!
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Re: A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the   [#permalink] 15 Dec 2016, 20:02

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by