In the past, the railroads in Ostronia were run as regional monopolies

It is 'E' for me.
(A) If the government of Ostronia ceases to subsidize railroad companies, few of those companies will continue to operate.
Nothing is mentioned about to what extent are the losses. We cannot assume that some of the companies will shut shop and some will continue to operate.

(B) Few companies in Ostronia that have received subsidies from the government have taken the needs and desires of their customers into account.
Cannot say this is definite from the passage

(C) Without government subsidies, railroad companies in Ostronia would have to increase the prices they charge their customers.
Reject: There is no mention of Price in passage.

(D) The transportation system in Ostronia is no more efficient today than it was in the past.
Reject: This is unnecessary and there are implications for efficiency.

(E) In recent years, some companies in Ostronia that have had little regard for the desires of their customers have nonetheless survived.
Correct: Holds good from the passage i.e. passage mentions that companies with no regards for customers' desires have survived.

I still continue to fight for my A
I don't see where is the flow in it because it is stated :

"But because of government subsidies that have permitted Ostronian railroad companies to operate even while incurring substantial losses"

-> if no more subsidies, railroad companies can not operate

However, I must admit that E seems also to be the answer...what's OA ?

E it is. I did not see the 'nonetheless' when i was attempting the question.

Hello, Praveen

E says 'some companies in Ostronia that have had little regard for the desires...'

Doesn't it also said some companies actually cared for customers?

Hi, HongHu.

Argument says because of government subsidies, companies continue to operate.

We cannot make sure that if no government subsidies, companies don't continue to operate.

That's the rule of thumb.

If A, then B,
If not A, then not B. It's not necessary.

Am I right? Please correct me.

Thanks

chunjuwu, maybe I am wrong but I disagree with the use of "if" -> the sentence is using "because" so :

because A -> B
if no A -> no B

the difference is important between IF and BECAUSE

do we have a OA for this one ? even with no explanation so that ce can figure it out...

A is wrong because there is no in no information provided that tells us that those companies will not continue to operate without subsidies - may be they will become more efficient without subsidies!

Contra-Positive logic applies to the following pattern and is always true:
If A, then B,
If not B, then not A.

If Goverment subsidy ->companies operate
If companies don't operate, -> Goverment does not give subsidy

Wrong Logic:

If A, then B
If not A then not B
is wrong logic

If Goverment subsidy -> companies operate
If Goverment does not give subsidy -> companies don't operate
is wrong

E) is clearly the answer as we don't have to make any assumptions.

a little means ---> some
little means---> almost nothing

same thing with a few and few

Good logic. :b: I'm not sure what "it" refers to in you next sentence "It's not necessary." I think you meant that A is not necessary condition of B, right? And that'd be correct.

When I first saw A I thought it may be right too. But then I read C and realized that both A and C could be right, but they can't be both right since there's only one right choice, yet we can't say one is more right than the other, therefore both of them must be wrong.

In less confusing words, what I just said is: If government stops subsidizing, the companies may go broke, they may need to raise their prices, or they may need to some other things such as reforms or something. We don't know which one for sure. Since the questions asks what must be true, not may be true, these are not our answers.

Almost nothing still is not nothing though. That's why we are not absolutely sure. We need to choose the one answer that we are absolutely sure for this questions.

(A) If the government of Ostronia ceases to subsidize railroad companies, few of those companies will continue to operate.

Wrong! The companies may still operate without the subsidies.
If A then B, If not A, cannot say anything about B

(B) Few companies in Ostronia that have received subsidies from the government have taken the needs and desires of their customers into account.

Wrong, out of scope.

(C) Without government subsidies, railroad companies in Ostronia would have to increase the prices they charge their customers.

Wrong, out of scope. They may chose to decrease further service to customers to recover losses.
(D) The transportation system in Ostronia is no more efficient today than it was in the past.
Wrong, Out of scope. It may be little better. but not good enough.

(E) In recent years, some companies in Ostronia that have had little regard for the desires of their customers have nonetheless survived.
Ther use of "some" makes it relevant. its certainly true that some companies have survived disregarding the customers' needs.

"E" is my choice.

Antmavel, A cannot be the right answer. Choice (A) talks about a number of the companies going bust if they lose the government subsidies. But this is not supported for in the passage. To arrive at this conclusion, you will probably need another assumption (something you shuoldn't make off hand just to make your answer choice fit in) or another premise would have to be given to you.

Another way to see this would be "In recent years, some companies in Ostronia that have had little regard for the desires of their customers have nonetheless survived."
We know from the passage that at least some survived and they continue to disregard their customers.

Hey guys....
following the trail of the series of discussion, i would like to put forward my theory.
If we pick up the jist of the entire passage and sum it up, won't it be like -
" ostronia railways have survived just becuase of the subsidies provided by the govt. If it was not for the subsidies, the railroads network would have collapsed becuase of the heavy competition faced from the roadways"

..the main line to look here is "..But because of government subsidies that have permitted Ostronian railroad companies to operate even while incurring substantial losses..."
this clearly spells out the above jist of the passage.

now if we look at the passage-

In the past, the railroads in Ostronia were run as regional monopolies and operated with little regard for what customers wanted. In recent years, with improvements to the Ostronian national highway network, the railroad companies have faced heavy competition from long-distance trucking companies. But because of government subsidies that have permitted Ostronian railroad companies to operate even while incurring substantial losses, the companies continue to disregard customers’ needs and desires.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of them?

(A) If the government of Ostronia ceases to subsidize railroad companies, few of those companies will continue to operate.---correct ( coz that's the entire summary of the passage. remember, here, we are saying 'few' and not all)

(B) Few companies in Ostronia that have received subsidies from the government have taken the needs and desires of their customers into account. ---strong but incorrect ( we are not sure whether these industries have a better competition or are they running just because of monoply in the market)

(C) Without government subsidies, railroad companies in Ostronia would have to increase the prices they charge their customers. --irrelevant

(D) The transportation system in Ostronia is no more efficient today than it was in the past. --irrelevant(who cares)

(E) In recent years, some companies in Ostronia that have had little regard for the desires of their customers have nonetheless survived. --incorrect ( again reffering to the explaination given in point 2. We are not sure which are these industries, or do they have any threat agains their monoply)


...let me know if someone has any doubts or counter for my explaination

E for me. The rest seem to assume something that is not necessarily true. E seems to be within the scope and if you try to imagine the situation that E states, you will agree with it no questions asked.

Premise : Railroads suck. They don't care about customers wants and needs because of government subsidies.

A is not the answer for this simple reason. The question says nothing about their survival. In fact it seems the author wants the removal of subsidies. This will force the railroad companies to be more proactive towards the customer's needs and wants

E perfectly summarizes what the author has stated.

Imo E

Inference from the argument should be 100 percent correct and deducible from the argument .

A is actually a very good trap as it gives us a scenario which may be true .But we are concerned about information that should be 100 percent true already .In inference question we should not extrapolate i guess.

B Also may be true or may be not
C May e true but they also can reduce tickets ans competition from Trucking companies will cause them to do so.They may also give good service as well.
D Irrelevant
E correct