It is currently 18 Jan 2018, 13:35

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 514

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 16

Location: United States
Concentration: International Business, General Management
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Dec 2011, 06:51
tuanquang269 wrote:
At the first glance, I will choose A. But when read C twice. I chose C because it directly weaken the conclusion of argument which stated that "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."



In C it is only mentioned that the money is unbalanced only for 3 months and later there could be profits......so How can this be the answer.......I will go with A....Can you please justify your point on this?
_________________

+1 Kudos If found helpful..

Kudos [?]: 321 [0], given: 16

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 189

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 51

GPA: 3.5
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to w [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2012, 21:20
+1 for C.The city council wants to to forestall a slowdown in the local economy but if their budget, becomes unbalanced then the target is missed.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 51

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 6

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

Show Tags

New post 03 Apr 2012, 22:14
+1 for C 8-)

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 6

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2012
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 3

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy
Schools: LBS '16 (M)
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.7
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2012, 16:51
edit - still think C is funky but I agree with it.
_________________

That 700.. I can taste it

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 3

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Dec 2011
Posts: 13

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

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

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2012, 21:03
Cantona wrote:
edit - still think C is funky but I agree with it.


Guys,

When deciding between C and A, one thing that a lot of people haven't focused a lot on are two phrases "city council has decided" and "most likely to be damaged". Keep in mind that city council has decided to suspend all the fares BUT this doesn't guarantee that people will actually use the public transport. Two scenarios are possible:

1) City council keeps the fares suspended BUT people still don't go for the public transport ==> council looses money
2) City council keeps the fares suspended AND people go for the public transport ==> council looses money and service stations loose money as well.

Now the questions asks you to pick the "most likely" option. Combining the above two scenarios, one can clearly see that council is certainly going to loose money whereas, service stations may or may not. Hence, the OA is C.

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 23

GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to w [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2012, 06:36
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 23

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2009
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2012, 09:14
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

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 14

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

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 2
WE: Sales (Consumer Products)
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to w [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Dec 2012, 02:23
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.

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 23

GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to w [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2013, 19:00
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

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 23

VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1375

Kudos [?]: 1748 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to w [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2013, 19:15
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.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Kudos [?]: 1748 [0], given: 62

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2012
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 32

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

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2013, 03:29
"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.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 32

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 16

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

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

Show Tags

New post 12 Jan 2013, 20:03
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?

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: GMAT Streetfighter!!
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 21

Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Finance
GPA: 3.87
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who drive to w [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jan 2013, 01:31
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...

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 21

VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1072

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2013, 04:59
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 local chain of service stations, which will see fewer customers during the daily commute.
Members of the bus drivers’ union, who will be forced to add more routes and work longer hours.
The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months.
Commuters who already use public transportation daily and who will face crowded conditions and travel delays.
Commuters who do not live near public transportation routes and will not be able to take advantage of the suspended fares.

Last edited by Archit143 on 20 Feb 2013, 00:35, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1072

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2013, 05:01
I feel that A should be answer....

Consider Kudos If my post helps

Archit

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jan 2013
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 28

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2013, 06:56
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 local chain of service stations, which will see fewer customers during the daily commute.
Members of the bus drivers’ union, who will be forced to add more routes and work longer hours.
The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months.
Commuters who already use public transportation daily and who will face crowded conditions and travel delays.
Commuters who do not live near public transportation routes and will not be able to take advantage of the suspended fares.

Conclusion: Due to this reduction of fares --> more money will be left in the hands of people--> city finances wont be negatively affected...

If in our answer choice if we can affect the underlined part we have our answer

Choice C states that by this plan the City will be left with an unbalanced budget, thereby affecting our conclusion. So, option C must be our option

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 28

VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1072

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2013, 07:17
Hi aditya
Good analysis adtiya, can you point out flaws in the reasoning of option A.....
As the argument aims at bring flux in the economy by providing more money in the hands of the people.
Hence if because of reduction in bus fares , some of the local chain loses their customers than isnt the economy getting affected.

Archit

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jan 2013
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 28

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2013, 07:42
Archit143 wrote:
Hi aditya
Good analysis adtiya, can you point out flaws in the reasoning of option A.....
As the argument aims at bring flux in the economy by providing more money in the hands of the people.
Hence if because of reduction in bus fares , some of the local chain loses their customers than isnt the economy getting affected.

Archit


Hi Archit

There are several flaws in A. To identify them we must first analyze what the conclusion is and only then can we proceed further.

The conclusion is: more money will be left in the hands of people--> city finances wont be negatively affected...

Now to analyze option A.
We need to get answers for other questions to check the scope of this statement, for example,
from the premise we have :the city council has decided that fares on all forms of public transportation
What is the scope of A local chain of service stations in option A.
So option C is the best

Happy to help

If you learnt anything from my post, Press KUDOS
After all, KUDOS is a great way to encourage the complete community. :-D

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 28

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Dedicates 2013 to MBA !!
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 58

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 14

Location: United States (MI)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2013, 09:23
IMO - C

Conclusion - City’s finances on the whole will not be negatively affected.
The only option that undermines is - The city council’s budget, which will be unbalanced after receiving no revenue from transit fares for three months.

Thanks and Regards,
Charu
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
Charu Kapoor

Never Never Never GIVE UP !!
Consider KUDOS in case I was able to help you.

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 14

VP
VP
avatar
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1072

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Feb 2013, 00:35
I have posted the OA...

Consider Kudos If my post helps!!!!

Archit

Kudos [?]: 685 [0], given: 70

Re: Due to a sharp rise in the price of gasoline, commuters who   [#permalink] 20 Feb 2013, 00:35

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 73 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.