According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain imp

VeritasKarishma

i have doubt regarding my reasoning of option D.Please clarify
i chose d becoz it says that the ultimately whole cost is absorbed by drivers and will not get benefit and option d says creates doubt by saying that 20% of commuters go to the other route leaving the highway which helps the drivers by reducing traffic and argument says drivers will not get any doubt.Can we use this reasoniing to choose option d.

Read the question stem:
Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority’s plan to
finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls

We need to cast doubt on the "effectiveness" of the plan - whether the plan will get in the required money. Who gets what benefit is irrelevant.
Though the argument discusses no benefit to the drivers, the question is only about effectiveness of the plan.

Check my explanation for option (D) here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to ... l#p2502888

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Could there also be a possibility in Option C that the authorities have calculated five years from the date of implementation only and hence, it does not impact the effectiveness at all. Nowhere does the argument say from which date the five year calculations has been made. Is my thought process correct?

It doesn't matter when the 5 yrs begin. The option clearly mentions that people can only postpone the effects. So finally they will need to pay the higher amount.

Odd question that proves that you should always read the question stem carefully.

The conclusion is that the plan should be rejected because it is unfair to drivers, who absorb the cost burden and don’t receive the benefit.


However, the question clearly asks you to find a premise/new info that shows the plan will not reach its goal of raising the funds necessary to improve the rail line.

Weakening the Conclusion in the passage vs what the question asks you to do are 2 completely different tasks.


The majority of the 2 answer choices picked seem to be between C and D.

C tells us that drivers will stock up on cheaper tokens now to avoid the eventual toll increase. However, reading the answer choice carefully, the new info. provided by Answer C tells us that this “postpones” the effect of the toll increase.

Since the planned toll hike is in place for 5 years, it seems unlikely that enough drivers can stock up on enough tokens now to “postpone” the toll increase for an entire 5 years. However, keep C on the 1st pass through of the choices.


D says the last time they tried this plan, 20% of the drivers just ended up taking a slightly longer route. If these drivers don’t take the bridge that charges the higher tolls, then they will not collect the increased tolls from these drivers.

Even though it is only 20% that avoided the toll hike by taking another route the last time they tried this plan, our goal is to cast the most doubt on whether the plan will work. Given the answer choices provided, D seems to cast the most doubt.

Showing that 1/5th of the drivers might again avoid the toll hikes is pretty good evidence that makes it “less likely” that the toll increase-plan will meet its goal this time as well.

Answer D shows us that the drivers have an alternative route in place via which they can avoid paying the toll hike. Based on this new info, we have a reason to doubt that this plan will actually raise the money needed for improvements.


D is the correct answer.

Posted from my mobile device

Dear experts, could you please explain why "D" is better than "A".

Based on Pareto's principle (80/20 rule), which is a concept taught and accepted in business school and arguably in real business world, the 20% loss in toll revenue may not be significant, since the remaining 80% of users will still pay increased toll fees.

But if "A" is true, then the authority may not even get the chance to collect increased revenue from the 80% of current highway users.

So why is "D" better than "A"?

Your advise will be appreciated, thanks!

Hi

Application of the Pareto principle to option (D) is a huge leap of faith. For starters, Pareto principle only states that 80% of the outcomes (in this case, maybe the toll) comes from 20% of the events (here, the toll payers). If we are going so far as to assume the Pareto principle, it is also logical to assume that the ones shifting to the longer route would be the ones most affected by the toll raise ie; the 20% of commuters who pay the 80% of toll collections. This indicates a failure of the plan. Pareto principle, in this case, would strengthen the case made by Option (D).

The most simple explanation for option (D) is that loss of 20% of toll paying commuters would, in the minimum, break the plan to finance these improvements over the course of five years - it would surely take longer.

Option (A) is incorrect because we do not know what the results of such hearings would be. It is possible that the plan may be supported, or not. We cannot assume that the plan will be opposed since we do not have any such indication from the passage.

Hope this helps.

VeritasKarishma Hi there !
The plan is to get the money from people who travel on the highway within the 5 years
To cast doubt on the effectiveness, We can either cash doubt on : 1) Time: if the plan will actually do what it was supposed to in that given time period
2) Amount: whether the estimated amount will be collected and whether a bunch of people will still go through the toll.

I agree D is okay and probably better. but how to pick C over D given that C weakens the claim if the plan will actually achieve its aim in 5 years

The Plan: Increase toll on those bridges.
Expectation: Recovery will happen in 5 yrs.

Look, the plan is how to recover the amount. In how much time the recovery will happen is an estimate.
So what we need to focus on is whether increased toll will lead to increase in collection.

Also, note that option (C) says "commuters will postpone the impact". So they will need to pay extra later but for a while they will stay pay the same. It doesn't say that commuters will buy lifetime passes at current rate. It says they can postpone the impact on them (temporarily). But later they will still need to pay extra.

Option (D) clearly says that people switch routes (not temporarily). Then we may actually see less collection.

So the correct option of the two is clear.

for (C)
1st question: the fact that it happened once in the past cannot be taken as proxy that it will certainly happen again, right? something may have changed between then and now to force the people to stick to this route...
2nd question: we do not know what number "20 percent" represents, and neither do we know the exact budget which would "finance" the rail line. if a 20% decrease in traffic does happen, how can we say with certainty that the plan WILL fail?

can someone please clear this out?

Hi godswildchild,

That's right. The correct option doesn't allow us to say with absolute certainty that the plan won't work. It's still better than the other options though, and that's what the question wants ("Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority’s plan").

The general advice is dont think that past trends will continue yet here we are saying that in D option something happened in past may be a behaviour in future. How come?

Can you weigh in?
KarishmaB
GMATNinja
MartyMurray
GMATCoachBen
ScottTargetTestPrep
MartyTargetTestPrep
bb
Bunuel

Hi kpop1234567890,

The best way to think about such options is that they are imperfect strengtheners. Have a look at the discussion at 45:47 below:

I am going to see all of your videos if time permits - this was a really good point as I am one of those people who will remove such options in first go haha. But i have heard from various coaches that we should not assume past trend will continue as it is a gmac trap, so not convinced how we are assuming it will in this case.

In GMAT Verbal, we have to be careful not to eliminate choices merely on the basis of some general idea that is based on what the GMAT did in other questions.

For instance, in this case, while, in a different question, a choice may have been incorrect because involved a trend continuing, that fact doesn't mean that all choices that seem to involve a trend will be incorrect. Rather, we can use the information that such a choice was incorrect in the past to help us analyze choice (D), but we can't substitute that information for analysis of choice (D).

Here's how we analyze choice (D).

(D) When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.

What we have to notice about this choice is what it indicates, which is three things:

- There is an alternative route that people can take.

- People have been willing to use that alternative route; in other words, people have found it worthwhile to take that route rather than pay tolls.

- The route is even better now than it was before when people were willing to use it to avoid tolls.

Now, think about that information. Even just the first part, that there is an alternative route, might weaken the argument on its own. At the same time, choice (D) goes even further. It confirms that the route is such that people have found it an acceptable alternative, AND it says that it's even better now than it was when people did so.

So, just using common sense, we see that choice (D) provides a clear reason to doubt the conclusion that the authority will be able to finance the improvements using bridge tolls since any reasonable person would agree that the information provided by (D) indicates that a significant percentage of people will likely take the alternative route rather than pay the tolls.

Takeaway: Logic and common sense are the most reliable means of determining whether a choice is the correct answer to a GMAT CR question. Information about how past questions worked can be helpful, but is not a substitute for logical analysis of the individual question.

That is an incorrect blanket statement. Past trends / what happened in other cities etc are relevant if they are meant to be relevant. You get clues in the question and options. e.g, when an option talks about a neighbouring city of similar size, what happened there usually becomes relevant in this city too. The author has given you clues "neighbouring" and "similar size" to tell you that the cities are comparable.

If you are talking about a certain route and what happened when this action was taken last time, it is relevant to what MAY happen if you take the same action again. We can certainly not eliminate these options. Here, the statement about the past does cast doubt on whether the plan will work. We are saying - it didn't work in the past. We need to know then what is different this time so that it will work. If the argument explains how it is different from last time, then we cannot say what may happen this time.

At the end of it all, it also depends on what the other options are. If we have a clear cut other option winner, there would be some indications in this option to show that it is irrelevant. If there is no other relevant option, this option would have indicators that it is correct.
Keep in mind - don't try to formulate "rules" to make your task easier. If you have found an easy way out, know that it will fail. The only thing that will work is your logic and reasoning and an understanding obtained by practicing enough such official questions.

Thanks for graciously mentoring me always. You always highlight my blindspots. I started this practice of wrong answers because in TTP CR you have chapters dedicated to this. So i thought i will create more to help me get smarter by pattern recognition