|
|
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.
24 Sep 2015, 10:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter:
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax
on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government
should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode
of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would
use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport.
Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense
of taxpaying citizens.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My Answer-
The argument suggests that government lower the property taxes on the railroad companies and shift the entire load of good transport industry on rail route instead of using highway transportation. Argument also suggests that since railway lines already exist, the government might not have to build new ones and the maintenance costs for highways can be avoided. The article however does not take into consideration many important facts and is baseless.
Firstly, the newsletter readily assumes that railway lines exist in every small town in the area which is discussed. Building a railway station in every small town and laying railway tracks to connect them to the nearby cities can be much more expensive than constructing and maintaining a highway. Hypothetically, even if every small town gets a railway station, maintaining it will be far more expensive than maintaining a highway. Government can incur a loss since the goods transport in a small town will be meager and very much limited . So to connect small towns to cities, only highways can be useful and are the most viable option.
Second, if the area has hilly terrains, then laying railway tracks or setting up train station is out of question. Railways need a plain land to operate. Even if tunnels are made to connect two places on either side of a hilly terrain, the cost is very high and can even prove impractical many times. Again, highway is the better option. If Small towns located on hill tops have to be provided with required goods, then road transportation will work the best.
Third, the article suggests that the fuel consumption is way less in railways as compared to trucks. Agreed that the fuel consumption is less, but what about time required for a goods train to reach its destination? Goods train have a limited speed of operation and definitely carry heavy load. This slows the train down. If we consider a 50 wagon train, then imagine the time required for this train to reach its destination. Trucks on the other hand can reach much faster to their destination. For goods that do not need to be delivered urgently can be transported by train, but goods, such as perishable items which need to reach their destination under a specified time limit, have to be transported by a truck.
Finally, even if we consider the option of shifting the entire goods transportation business on existing railway lines, the schedule will be more rigid and will have fewer trains per route. There will be no other means of transportation and if the railway transport is disrupted for any unprecedented reason, then the entire business will be hit. Instead, increasing the road transport tax to an acceptable amount is a much favorable option. This might lessen the load on the tax payer's pocket as well.
In all, the argument is unconvincing and lacks proper reasoning. In order to strengthen the argument, all the above concerns should be addressed. A proper survey and study has to be done in order to address such situations.
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax
on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government
should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode
of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would
use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport.
Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense
of taxpaying citizens.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
My Answer-
The argument suggests that government lower the property taxes on the railroad companies and shift the entire load of good transport industry on rail route instead of using highway transportation. Argument also suggests that since railway lines already exist, the government might not have to build new ones and the maintenance costs for highways can be avoided. The article however does not take into consideration many important facts and is baseless.
Firstly, the newsletter readily assumes that railway lines exist in every small town in the area which is discussed. Building a railway station in every small town and laying railway tracks to connect them to the nearby cities can be much more expensive than constructing and maintaining a highway. Hypothetically, even if every small town gets a railway station, maintaining it will be far more expensive than maintaining a highway. Government can incur a loss since the goods transport in a small town will be meager and very much limited . So to connect small towns to cities, only highways can be useful and are the most viable option.
Second, if the area has hilly terrains, then laying railway tracks or setting up train station is out of question. Railways need a plain land to operate. Even if tunnels are made to connect two places on either side of a hilly terrain, the cost is very high and can even prove impractical many times. Again, highway is the better option. If Small towns located on hill tops have to be provided with required goods, then road transportation will work the best.
Third, the article suggests that the fuel consumption is way less in railways as compared to trucks. Agreed that the fuel consumption is less, but what about time required for a goods train to reach its destination? Goods train have a limited speed of operation and definitely carry heavy load. This slows the train down. If we consider a 50 wagon train, then imagine the time required for this train to reach its destination. Trucks on the other hand can reach much faster to their destination. For goods that do not need to be delivered urgently can be transported by train, but goods, such as perishable items which need to reach their destination under a specified time limit, have to be transported by a truck.
Finally, even if we consider the option of shifting the entire goods transportation business on existing railway lines, the schedule will be more rigid and will have fewer trains per route. There will be no other means of transportation and if the railway transport is disrupted for any unprecedented reason, then the entire business will be hit. Instead, increasing the road transport tax to an acceptable amount is a much favorable option. This might lessen the load on the tax payer's pocket as well.
In all, the argument is unconvincing and lacks proper reasoning. In order to strengthen the argument, all the above concerns should be addressed. A proper survey and study has to be done in order to address such situations.
Moderators:
188 posts
