|
|
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.
11 Nov 2013, 00:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceedeing the transit company's projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway station"
Discuss how well reasoned ...
The argument claims that the commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, the company claims that the commuter use of shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. Therefore, the transit company is planning to either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations. The transit company’s argument is not well reasoned. Hence, the argument is weak/unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the use of shuttle buses is low because of high fares. This might be the reason but it necessarily does not mean that it is the main reason for below projected numbers. Clearly, the company has to conduct some studies before taking any actions.
Secondly, the argument claims that commuter use of new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections but at the same time the use of shuttle buses has not had similar increase. This statement clearly indicates that there is a clear reason for the low increase of the use of shuttle buses. To illustrate, maybe the transit company has only new train in use and it is still using old-fashioned shuttle buses. If the argument had described the condition of the shuttle buses the argument would have had fewer questions in the air.
Finally, it is not stated how the transit company has come up with the two possible solutions. It is unclear whether the company has reviewed and updated the routes of the buses. It could be possible that most of the new subway train users do not have any other choice than to use their own cars to get to the subway stations. Therefore, the transit company shall conduct a survey to find out the main reasons why people are more eagerly using new train and not the shuttle buses. Without convincing answer to the above question it is not possible to evaluate the transit company’s proposals.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order t assess the merits of the proposed solutions, it is essential to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
Discuss how well reasoned ...
The argument claims that the commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, the company claims that the commuter use of shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. Therefore, the transit company is planning to either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations. The transit company’s argument is not well reasoned. Hence, the argument is weak/unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the use of shuttle buses is low because of high fares. This might be the reason but it necessarily does not mean that it is the main reason for below projected numbers. Clearly, the company has to conduct some studies before taking any actions.
Secondly, the argument claims that commuter use of new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections but at the same time the use of shuttle buses has not had similar increase. This statement clearly indicates that there is a clear reason for the low increase of the use of shuttle buses. To illustrate, maybe the transit company has only new train in use and it is still using old-fashioned shuttle buses. If the argument had described the condition of the shuttle buses the argument would have had fewer questions in the air.
Finally, it is not stated how the transit company has come up with the two possible solutions. It is unclear whether the company has reviewed and updated the routes of the buses. It could be possible that most of the new subway train users do not have any other choice than to use their own cars to get to the subway stations. Therefore, the transit company shall conduct a survey to find out the main reasons why people are more eagerly using new train and not the shuttle buses. Without convincing answer to the above question it is not possible to evaluate the transit company’s proposals.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order t assess the merits of the proposed solutions, it is essential to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
Moderators:
188 posts
