Crowding on Mooreville’s subway frequently leads to delays, because it

Exactly. OA is D. But can you plz explain clearly for me why D? I also eliminate A, B, C and E. At last, I chose D, but I really do not understand why. Thanks a lot.

Crowding results from people waiting for their trains during peak hours (not enough trains!). The proposed plan will increase the number of train trips during peak hours to reduce the number of people waiting and hence crowd. Note that the 5% increase in train trips doesn't have to take into account 20% increase in off-peak ridership.

its D...

can explanations like hanumayamma's wait at least a day after the question was posed.. please..

thanks a lot...

I think its D.

I think explanations are expected. You can avoid to read the explanations and the answers.

I haven't read the answers people have replied with, otherwise it would impart on my decision making.

if you have a choice of not to read the explanations, how does it affect you?

I agree. When you opent the thread and read the question you cannot read other peoples answers until you scroll down. Why would you scroll down and read the answers until you have your own answer. If you were studying out the OG you wouldnt flip to answers before you answered the question first would you.

i think this is a very smart method of solving the argument....to eliminate the irrelevant ones and keep the potential ones...you could soon find the right answer most of the time

I chose D.But this is by POE
A. Purchase or not is out of context. We are thinking of the effects of increse in trips.
B. Why are we talking about Bus trips to subways
C. Lacking an alternative does not answer the no change in crowding.
D. Seems somewhat supporting official's prediction.
E. We are not talking of costs. Right?

So D.
But I would wonder if they did it practically since it does not make sense to increase trips when the load is not peak and when many use them sparsely

D. Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours when trains are now sparsely used. [Hold it]

Good Morning,
I really don't understand how can this be the cause. I mean, neither the other options could be the cause, but how can increasing ridership in off-peak be sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase? If already there no are no delayduring off-peak time?

Thanks

Crowding on Mooreville???s subway frequently leads to delays, because it is difficult for passengers to exit from the trains. Over the next ten years, the Mooreville Transit Authority projects that subway ridership will increase by 20 percent. The authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period. Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for the officials??? prediction?

A) The population of Mooreville is not expected to increase significantly in the next ten years.



D) Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours when trains now are sparsely used.

Greetings Verbal Experts,
When I recently solved a Mock - My option A was different and I am not getting any explanation why Option A would be wrong in this case.

option D might be the better choice here but please can someone checkout my reasoning for option A it is as follows:

We have to support the prediction that the increase in the no. of trains/day will be sufficient to tackle the issue caused by the delays, which were caused by crowding (because of difficulty to exit)

If the riders are increasing + trains are also increasing + the population will not increase doesn't that imply that the increase in trains will solve the issue of crowding as:
as we know that the author of this argument assumes that the prediction will be sufficient to tackle the crowding

no population increase means that only the 20% increase will be there which the author already thinks is ok according to the 5% increase in daily trains.

Hi Parth

I can spot a couple of problems in your line of reasoning. Firstly, nowhere does it state that the number of trains is increasing - the passage only states that "daily train trips" are planned to be increased by 5%.

Secondly, the population increase or decrease does not matter here as we are only dealing with the population travelling on trains. Also, I am not clear how you have assumed "no population increase" here - the passage is completely silent on this aspect. The population may or may not increase over the next 10 years. Finally, the author's views on this 5% increase in trips being sufficient to accommodate the 20% increase in ridership are not known - we only know that the officials feel this will be enough.

Due to the above discrepancies, your line of reasoning is not very clear.

Option D states that the 20 % increase would be in ridership(number of people riding) which means the load will increase in off-peak hours. So hence option D supports the argument.

It's D, since most of the increase in subways rides will occurs in off-peaks hours, then the prediction of a 5% increase in daily trains might be enough to contain the future increase.

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.