Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 24 Mar 2017, 08:54

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 189
GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 23

Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2012, 07:36
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

94% (02:28) correct 6% (02:05) wrong based on 94 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to work in the center of the city are facing a large increase in transportation expenses that will limit the funds they have available to spend in other areas. In order to forestall a slowdown in the local economy, the city council has decided that fares on all forms of public transportation will be suspended for the next three months. Clearly, if commuters can get to work more cheaply, they will have more money left over to spend in other sectors of the economy, and the city’s finances on the whole will not be negatively affected by higher gasoline prices.

If all of the statements above are true, which of the following is most likely to be damaged by the city council’s plan?

A. A local chain of service stations, which will see fewer customers during the daily commute.
B. Members of the bus drivers’ union, who will be forced to add more routes and work longer hours.
C. The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months.
D. Commuters who already use public transportation daily and who will face crowded conditions and travel delays.
E. Commuters who do not live near public transportation routes and will not be able to take advantage of the suspended fares.

The above questions states in bold version all of the above statement is true and later on we need to damage i.e. weaken the plan.
Can some one explain the above question and how to categorize them whether it is must be true/inference or weaken?

[Reveal] Spoiler:
after discussion

_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 21
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2012, 10:14
Aristocrat wrote:
Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to work in the center of the city are facing a large increase in transportation expenses that will limit the funds they have available to spend in other areas. In order to forestall a slowdown in the local economy, the city council has decided that fares on all forms of public transportation will be suspended for the next three months. Clearly, if commuters can get to work more cheaply, they will have more money left over to spend in other sectors of the economy, and the city’s finances on the whole will not be negatively affected by higher gasoline prices.

If all of the statements above are true, which of the following is most likely to be damaged by the city council’s plan?

A. A local chain of service stations, which will see fewer customers during the daily commute.
B. Members of the bus drivers’ union, who will be forced to add more routes and work longer hours.
C. The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months.
D. Commuters who already use public transportation daily and who will face crowded conditions and travel delays.
E. Commuters who do not live near public transportation routes and will not be able to take advantage of the suspended fares.

The above questions states in bold version all of the above statement is true and later on we need to damage i.e. weaken the plan.
Can some one explain the above question and how to categorize them whether it is must be true/inference or weaken?

[Reveal] Spoiler:
after discussion

can you share source of this question. there are some questionable phrases such as : "decided that fares on all forms of public transportation will be suspended ", it is nonsensical, as something that makes sense in " suspending further rise in fare" and not "suspending the fare" itself. if it is not from official sources, this one is a ridiculous Q
Intern
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 14
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 2
WE: Sales (Consumer Products)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2012, 03:23
This is a good practice. At first I ignored 'be' of the 'be damaged'. Mistakenly allocate it into 'weaken' category. But actually, this is an inference question. Basing on the statements of the stem, you have to infer which group be damaged most by the plan.

IMO C. But B also seems like a good choice.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 189
GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 23

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2013, 20:00
Hey the source is gmatclub test.
The question is of weaken not inference.
However, the question stem statement is those of inference based.
OA is C
_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 179

Kudos [?]: 1397 [0], given: 62

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2013, 20:15
Aristocrat wrote:
Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to work in the center of the city are facing a large increase in transportation expenses that will limit the funds they have available to spend in other areas. In order to forestall a slowdown in the local economy, the city council has decided that fares on all forms of public transportation will be suspended for the next three months. Clearly, if commuters can get to work more cheaply, they will have more money left over to spend in other sectors of the economy, and the city’s finances on the whole will not be negatively affected by higher gasoline prices.

If all of the statements above are true, which of the following is most likely to be damaged by the city council’s plan?

A. A local chain of service stations, which will see fewer customers during the daily commute.
B. Members of the bus drivers’ union, who will be forced to add more routes and work longer hours.
C. The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months.
D. Commuters who already use public transportation daily and who will face crowded conditions and travel delays.
E. Commuters who do not live near public transportation routes and will not be able to take advantage of the suspended fares.

The above questions states in bold version all of the above statement is true and later on we need to damage i.e. weaken the plan.
Can some one explain the above question and how to categorize them whether it is must be true/inference or weaken?

[Reveal] Spoiler:
after discussion

This is a weaken question, not an inference one. Don't get confused by the statement "...all of the above statement is true".
In this question we are supposed to find one negative side effect of the plan and only C implies a negative effect.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2012
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 32

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2013, 04:29
"commuters who drive to work in the center of the city are facing a large increase in transportation expenses that will limit the funds they have available to spend in other areas. In order to forestall a slowdown in the local economy, the city council has decided..."

high gas price > high transporatation expenses > lower fund to spend in other areas > slowdown of local eco.
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 36

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2013, 21:03
I narrowed it down to A and E, but in A the gas stations can still make money from people driving into the city. It makes sense to me that, although the city is cancelling fares, if a person cannot take advantage of it they are not benefiting.

As for C, the city council is cancelling fares to increase local economy. Doesn't one offset the other?
Manager
Status: GMAT Streetfighter!!
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Posts: 59
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Finance
GPA: 3.87
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 21

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2013, 02:31
Marcab wrote:
Aristocrat wrote:
Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to work in the center of the city are facing a large increase in transportation expenses that will limit the funds they have available to spend in other areas. In order to forestall a slowdown in the local economy, the city council has decided that fares on all forms of public transportation will be suspended for the next three months. Clearly, if commuters can get to work more cheaply, they will have more money left over to spend in other sectors of the economy, and the city’s finances on the whole will not be negatively affected by higher gasoline prices.

If all of the statements above are true, which of the following is most likely to be damaged by the city council’s plan?

A. A local chain of service stations, which will see fewer customers during the daily commute.
B. Members of the bus drivers’ union, who will be forced to add more routes and work longer hours.
C. The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months.
D. Commuters who already use public transportation daily and who will face crowded conditions and travel delays.
E. Commuters who do not live near public transportation routes and will not be able to take advantage of the suspended fares.

The above questions states in bold version all of the above statement is true and later on we need to damage i.e. weaken the plan.
Can some one explain the above question and how to categorize them whether it is must be true/inference or weaken?

[Reveal] Spoiler:
after discussion

This is a weaken question, not an inference one. Don't get confused by the statement "...all of the above statement is true".
In this question we are supposed to find one negative side effect of the plan and only C implies a negative effect.

I selected C, but I can see why E would make sense too. If the wording in "E" was changed to include "All Commuters" did not live near public transportation, the plan would produce no benefit, and so maybe E would work, but the way E is written seems to imply that some do receive a benefit.

What also makes "E" appealing is that the answer choice addresses the commuters, whom the argument emphasizes.

As for "C" the city council is clearly taking it in the shorts by subsidizing the fares, so it is the loser...
Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 2030
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 770 Q0 V
Followers: 65

Kudos [?]: 622 [0], given: 355

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2014, 16:08
Was trying to decide between C and D, why is D not the correct answer? I thought that OK so the government's budget could suffer because they will have to subsidize public transport but we also know that the higher prices of gasoline will bring more taxes to them, so I don't think that this it the most damaged of all.

Thanks
Cheers
J
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 3609
Location: India
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1594

Kudos [?]: 12621 [0], given: 1876

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2015, 16:06
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who   [#permalink] 03 May 2015, 16:06
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who 2 16 Feb 2012, 19:03
1 Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who 6 04 Dec 2011, 19:38
1 Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who 14 02 Sep 2011, 05:57
3 Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who 16 16 Aug 2010, 13:55
11 Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who 33 22 May 2010, 03:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by