Last year, before the Edgeville train service was discontinued because

Seriously calls the argument into question would be like weakening.
I thought of following reasons:
A- The option rather strengthens the argument of restoring the Edgeville service would result in serious deficits.
B- As the passenger fares constitute the only allowable funding source, with the number of potential riders for the train service has significantly increased from last year to this year; we can expect the funding to increase , restoring the Edgeville service might not result in serious deficits. This calls the argument into question.
C-Not related to the funding.
D-Not related to funding of the train service.
E-Stores could locate back, not directly related.

B is the best answer.

In any CR question, we need to relate it to the real world and then find the gaps in the scenario as it is put in front of us by the author of the small passage.

Here, the scenario is that the ridership on the Edgeville train service was too low,so the service had to be shut down.Now a few riders are willing to give more fee for the ride they will take. But the train service, even if restarted, will be solely dependent on the fee paid by its riders and so author expects that the losses will happen.

Given this situation, the author concludes that restoring the service will only lead to losses. So what can be the gap in the author's logic ?
How can we break it or atleast weaken it?

I argue : " what if the ridership increases ? "
Doesn't it seem that the author is simply assuming that the ridership will stay the same as before.But what if now the situation has changed now ?

Will the author then be able to say that the deficit will be more ? What if the earning because of high ridership now compensates all the costs and inputs.

With this sense and logic in our mind, let us see the options :

1.This option indicates that now the cost of restarting the service will be even more than before. This essentially gives me a negative feeling " oh, in such a case , may be the costs will now become more, the income is not guaranteed anyways" .The option gives favours the author's conclusion and not my opposition this time.
In short, it strengthens the conclusion and not weaken it. So it's not the correct choice.

2. This statement gives a potential cause and effect. The effect is stated directly, that is, the ridership will increase. This, in turn, increases my belief in the stand I had taken and decreases the belief in the author's conclusion. Because,in such a scenario, it is possible that income from rider fees will now compensate the costs and notlead to losses or deficits. It weakens the author's conclusion and so a possible correct answer.

3. Now if old riders have bought automobiles by now , it is possible that they will prefer using them only. This indicates that perhaps now the ridership will not increase. Supports author's conclusion and weakens my opposition. Incorrect.

4. If the average salary of potential customers of the train service has decreased, it logically indicates that now they will be having even lesser money to spend on the train ride. Many might not prefer in fact taking the ride now. Weakens my statement that ridership might increase. So strengthens the conclusion. Incorrect choice.

5. Now, several stores have come up in adjoining areas of Edgeville. We can infer that now, people will travel less for buying from stores in Edgeville and so might not use the train service anymore. Again, this only strengthens the conclusion and adds no weight to my position. Incorrect choice.

Correct answer: B

Posted from my mobile device

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.