In the last 10 years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped by

B)
The council assumes that the usage of pay phones depends on the income. It assumes that people with low income are more likely to use pay phones than are people with high income. So it argues that the best way to respond to the decrease in demand for the usage of pay phones is to remove pay phones from middle- and upper-income neighborhoods. Out of the answer choices, only B supports the assumption that people with low income are more likely to use pay phones than are people with high income.

IMO C.

Conclusion - Removing the payohones from middle and high income neighborhoods will inconvenience only few people.

Here, few people are those who use cell phones as can be understood from the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

In the last 10 years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped by 90%. Since cell phone usage is much higher among middle- and upper-income residents of Bridgeport than among lower-income residents, the Bridgeport City Council has decided to remove pay phones from middle- and upper-income neighborhoods, while retaining those in lower-income neighborhoods. The council’s reasoning is that this plan will respond appropriately to demand for pay phones and thereby inconvenience very few people.

Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support the claim that the plan to retain pay phones only in lower-income neighborhoods will have the intended effect?


(A) In certain areas, pay phone usage has dropped only 50%–60% over the past 10 years. Incorrect

concern for payphones available only for lower income peoples

(B) Middle-income residents are more likely to use pay phones than high-income residents. Incorrect

it doesnt show how payphones use increase among lower income peoples

(C) Some lower-income residents do use cell phones. Correct

most of lower-income residents can be possible consumers of payphones

(D) People who need a pay phone are most likely to use one within two miles of their home. Irrelevant

(E) Eliminating pay phones would save the city money. Irrelevant
_________________

(A) In certain areas, pay phone usage has dropped only 50%–60% over the past 10 years. -- Irrelevant.

(B) Middle-income residents are more likely to use pay phones than high-income residents. -- Irrelevant. Argument is about reshuffle to lower income households.

(C) Some lower-income residents do use cell phones. -- This only weakens the argument. "some" can be any number.

(D) People who need a pay phone are most likely to use one within two miles of their home. -- Correct. If you remove those in upper and middle income areas, it wont affect the lower income areas since they're likely to use the pay-phones within their own areas. Hence the plan wont inconvenience them.

(E) Eliminating pay phones would save the city money. -- Irrelevant. The argument is about appropriate responding to demand and inconveniencing few people.

I think D. As people in the lower income group will have these phone booths available in their locality and hence the intended use shall go as per the plan.

Premise : Payphones are mostly used by low income groups
Conclusion : Remove payphones from mid and high income areas
Assuming that people who need the payphone would need it only near their houses and not away from them
This is what I was thinking, can you please help me understand why this is irrelevant ?
Thanks in advance

(A) In certain areas, pay phone usage has dropped only 50%–60% over the past 10 years.
=> It doesn't say anything abt the effect of retaining pay phone in low- income group
(B) Middle-income residents are more likely to use pay phones than high-income residents.
=> Then what? even if middle ppl use less than high is still the same. Irrelevant
(C) Some lower-income residents do use cell phones.
=> How about the rest lower-income? They may use or not use the pay phone. Cant say anything abt effect
(D) People who need a pay phone are most likely to use one within two miles of their home.
=>It mean people is convenient with this. And lower income ppl who use pay phone will feel comfortable and use this service => Correct
(E) Eliminating pay phones would save the city money. => OFS.

(D) People who need a pay phone are most likely to use one within two miles of their home:



On Strengthen questions, your job is to find something that would make the argument more likely to be valid. The correct answer does not have to make the argument definitely true.

What does the author assume in drawing the conclusion that dropping pay phones from middle- and upper-income neighborhoods while leaving them in lower-income neighborhoods will be the best way to meet demand and inconvenience very few people?

First, the author assumes that there is some correlation between cell phone usage and pay phone usage. Those who don’t use cell phones as much, the reasoning goes, are more likely to use pay phones. (Note the vagueness of the phrase cell phone usage. Are lower-income residents less likely to have phones at all? Or do they just use their phones less?)

The author also assumes that people are most likely to want to use pay phones in their own neighborhoods (as opposed to, say, traveling to an area with lousy cell phone reception, where a pay phone might be someone’s only option!).

Answer (D) matches the assumption that the lower-income residents are using pay phones close to home.

Answer (A) is tempting but it’s a trap. The choice doesn’t indicate where these statistics apply! If usage has dropped 90% overall but only 50%– 60% in upper-income neighborhoods, then the conclusion is actually weakened.

Answer (B) makes an irrelevant distinction—in order to evaluate this argument, you don’t need any data splitting the upper- and middle-income groups from each other.

The argument doesn’t assume that no lower-income residents use cell phones; it only requires that their usage is lower. Answer (C) is incorrect.

Answer (E) addresses the wrong conclusion! The question is not whether the plan is a good idea in general or whether the city should implement the plan. Rather, the conclusion states that following the plan will meet demand and avoid inconveniencing people; these considerations have nothing to do with whether the city will save money.


_________________

in D] first of all it does not specify that the people who need pay phone belongs to lower income group. there can be very few people from higher income group who might use a pay phone some time.


and If I negate D] People are less likely to use pay phone with in two miles of their home. It breaks the conclusion.

is there any better way to think about the right answer?

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.
_________________