A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion is to

Question

A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion is to provide high-speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart. The successful implementation of this plan would cost far less than expanding existing airports and would also reduce the number of airplanes clogging both airports and airways.

Which of the following, if true, could proponents of the plan above most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for the soundness of their plan?

(A) An effective high-speed ground-transportation system would require major repairs to many highways and mass-transit improvements.

(B) One-half of all departing flights in the nation’s busiest airport head for a destination in a major city 225 miles away.

(C) The majority of travelers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 600 miles away.

(D) Many new airports are being built in areas that are presently served by high-speed ground-transportation systems.

(E) A large proportion of air travelers are vacationers who are taking long-distance flights.

egmat · Accepted Answer

Passage Analysis: 
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion is to provide high-speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart. 
   Problem: Airport congestion. 
 Cost-effective solution: High speed ground transportation between major cities spaced between 200 to 500 miles.

The successful implementation of this plan would cost far less than expanding existing airports and would also reduce the number of airplanes clogging both airports and airways.
 Advantages of successful implementation of this solution:
  Much lower cost compared to expanding existing airports.  
 Reduces the number of airplanes clogging both airports and airways.

Question stem

Which of the following, if true, could proponents of the plan above most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for the soundness of their plan?

The question essentially asks for a strengthener.

Pre-thinking

The conclusion here is that  high-speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart will provide a cost effective solution to the problem of airport congestion.

To strengthen this conclusion, we can give details that state either 
  ground transport development of this kind is less costly, 
or that  
 the chance for the ground transport being opted by travellers is higher,   
for example.

Option Analysis 
 (A) An effective high-speed ground-transportation system would require major repairs to many highways and mass-transit improvements. 
This is a weakener since it states that developing high-speed ground-transportation system will be costly. It is against the conclusion. Hence it is incorrect.

(B) One-half of all departing flights in the nation’s busiest airport head for a destination in a major city 225 miles away.  
This option is in the line of our second strengthener. If half of the flights that use the busiest airport have a destination that can be covered by a high-speed ground-transportation system , then the likelihood that people shift to the alternative option is higher. It will be cost effective since it is to the same city and it can effectively reduce the air traffic at the airport almost by half. Therefore it is the correct answer.

(C) The majority of travelers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 600 miles away. 
This option talks about rural airports which are presumably not very congested. Also, this talks about a situation where high-speed ground-transportation system are not useful or relevant, so if anything this option can only weaken the conclusion.

(D) Many new airports are being built in areas that are presently served by high-speed ground-transportation systems. 
We are talking about existing airports that experience congestion and not the ones that are newly being made. New airports being built in areas serves by high-speed ground-transportation system does not bring in any causative effect into the equation.

(E) A large proportion of air travelers are vacationers who are taking long-distance flights. 
Again. long distance flights imply that the high-speed ground-transportation system may not be of muh use for the vacationers. Hence this option also has a weakening effect.

Therefore the correct answer is  B

raghavakumar85 · Answer

B is the answer. It strengthens the argument by supporting the justification of high speed ground transportation.

whamberto · Answer

The answer is in this case has to be B.

A. Provides a reason not to build the high speed ground transportation - weakens argument

B. Provides a good reason why this high speed ground transportation should be built (to reduce congestion in the airport) - strengthens argument

C. Since we are discussing travel between major cities, this is irrelevant. This answer all weakens the argument because it mentions that travelers would be going to destinations over 600 miles away.

D. Expanding airports is not what you want since high speed ground transportation is already present. - weakens argument

E. If a large proportion of travelers take long distance flights, implementing this plan would not be useful. - weakens argument

AbeinOhio · Answer

I agree with B as the best answer - but I don't think that it's a great answer either..

You have to make the assumption that the busiest airport is representative of other airports which could be a stretch?

kuttingchai · Answer

Vote for B

Plan = provide high-speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart is a cost-effective solution to airport congestion. 
P1 : Plan will 
 - cost less than expanding existing airports 
 - reduce the number of airplanes clogging both airports and airways.

(B) One-half of all departing flights in the nation’s busiest airport head for a destination in a major city 225 miles away.
=> This validates the soundness of the plan because the major destinations are 225 miles aways

(A) An effective high-speed ground-transportation system would require major repairs to many highways and mass-transit improvements.
--> this will weaken the solution

(C) The majority of travelers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 600 miles away.
--> if they are flying 600 miles away then the plan will not work

(D) Many new airports are being built in areas that are presently served by high-speed ground-transportation systems.
--> this doesnot support the plan. if there is already a high-speed ground transport system, why do we need new airport? It will increase the cost.

(E) A large proportion of air travelers are vacationers who are taking long-distance flights. 
-- Out of scope

karun0109 · Answer

Answers in B, since half of the departing flights are 225 miles away, providing a high speed ground transportation option between 200 to 500 miles will lessen the burden.

navaljoshi · Answer

Conclusion : Cities that are closer should be road connected rather then by air planes.
Option B suggest that planes are going to a place that is 225 kms and can be connected through road.

vnigam21 · Answer

A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion is to provide high-speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart. The successful implementation of this plan would cost far less than expanding existing airports and would also reduce the number of airplanes clogging both airports and airways.

Problem :  Airport congestion due to clogging of airplanes
 Plan/Cost-Effective Solution :  To provide high-speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart.

Which of the following, if true, could proponents of the plan above most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for the soundness of their plan?

(A) An effective high-speed ground-transportation system would require major repairs to many highways and mass-transit improvements. 
 This is providing a drawback for the plan. It weakens. By emphasizing the  likely costs  of providing high-speed ground transportation is not by itself a solution to airport congestion. Therefore, incorrect.

(B) One-half of all departing flights in the nation’s busiest airport head for a destination in a major city 225 miles away. 
 It supports by providing the fact that one-half of all departing flights in the nation’s busiest airport head for a destination in  a major city 225 miles away.  Also, the plan is to provide high-speed ground transportation between  major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart . Thus, its the correct answer.
Option B indicates that between the cities to be served by the plan there is substantial air travel to which ground transportation would represent an alternative.

(C) The majority of travelers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 600 miles away. 
 It weakens as flights are flying to destinations in cities over 600 miles away. The plan is for major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart.

(D) Many new airports are being built in areas that are presently served by high-speed ground-transportation systems. 
 It suggests that already new airports are built so use them instead of providing the high-speed ground-transportation systems. It weakens.

(E) A large proportion of air travelers are vacationers who are taking long-distance flights. 
 Long distance flights, weakens the soundness of the above mentioned plan. Incorrect.

C and E say that there are many travelers for whom the proposed system would actually provide no alternative.

articuno · Answer

1. Question asks for a reason plan will work
2. 
Plan: to reduce congestion, we need to install a ground transport system
Premise: costs less than to expand existing airport

3. A reason the ground transport works given that we want to reduce congestion

4. 
A: Weaken

B: Hold

C: Weaken

D: Hold

E: What is the definition of long distance? Eliminate

B vs D
B: A reason plan works if flights are between 200-500 miles. But we're talking about busiest airport. Question is about airports in general. Hold

D: This choice seems like "other way around" argument

Our plan: A then B
This choice: B then A

Also, the choice discusses new aiports. I thought we're talking about old apirports.

My selection: Choice B

saby1410 · Answer

VeritasKarishma

i do have silly doubt maybe please clarify what is difference between soundness of plan and plan OR what does it mean to say soundness of plan

KarishmaB · Answer

"soundness of plan" means the "viability of plan" - that the plan is reasonable and should achieve its aim

What can you cite as a piece of evidence for soundness of the plan?
means what shows the plan is sound (viable), that the plan will have the intended result.
It means what can you cite in favour of the plan? What will strengthen the plan?

stackskillz · Answer

Conc : The successful implementation of this plan would cost far less than expanding existing airports and would also reduce the number of airplanes clogging both airports and airways.

(A)  An effective high-speed ground-transportation system would require major repairs to many highways and mass-transit improvements  - Sounds like a weakener. Don't need it.  Drop

(B)  One-half of all departing flights in the nation’s busiest airport head for a destination in a major city 225 miles away.  - This seems to be in the sweet-spot distance suggested in the plan above. If the major cities withing 200 to 500 miles are connected with high-speed ground transport, it would significant'y reduce the traffice in the airport, i.e., upper limit at 50%.  Keep

(C)  The majority of travelers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 600 miles away.  This option talks about random destinations over 600 miles away. This is out of the scope of the plan suggested.  Drop

(D)  Many new airports are being built in areas that are presently served by high-speed ground-transportation systems.  This option can be either taken as a suggestion that high-speed ground transport are not serving their intended pupose or that new airports could be complementary, i.e. predominantly for serving long-distance flights greater than 500 miles. Since this could go either way.  Drop

(E)  A large proportion of air travelers are vacationers who are taking long-distance flights. -  This doesn't explain or support how the plan will have its intended effect.  Drop

KarishmaB · Answer

Problem:   airport congestion
  Plan:   provide high-speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart.
  Aim:   to be a cost-effective solution to the problem

Which of the following supports that the plan makes sense, that it will achieve its aim? We are looking for something that will strengthen the plan.

(A) An effective high-speed ground-transportation system would require major repairs to many highways and mass-transit improvements.

This seems to be weakening the plan. If major repairs would be required, will the plan be cost effective?

(B) One-half of all departing flights in the nation’s busiest airport head for a destination in a major city 225 miles away.

Correct. This tells us that 'high speed ground transportation between major cities lying 200 to 500 miles apart' will lead to lower congestion. Half the flights at the  busiest airports are heading for a city that is 225 miles away. If high speed ground transportation links these cities, fewer flights will be required. Hence it supprots that airport congestion will be reduced. It doesn't talk about the cost but that doesn't matter. It addresses one aspect of the aim of the plan and that is sufficient.

(C) The majority of travelers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 600 miles away.

Irrelevant. Rural airports are irrelevant. We are discussing major cities.

(D) Many new airports are being built in areas that are presently served by high-speed ground-transportation systems.

Irrelevant. We are discussing what to do at places where airports are congested, not where they are being built.

(E) A large proportion of air travelers are vacationers who are taking long-distance flights.

If anything, it opposes our plan (though a large proportion doesn't mean there aren't enough major city commuters). We are assuming that, at the airport, there are enough travellers between major cities 200 to 500 miles apart.

Answer (B)

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion is to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion is to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards