Nalmed Province's plan is to reduce highway congestion by expanding

Nalmed Province's plan is to reduce highway congestion by expanding the commuter rail system, so giving more people the option of travelling by train.

The plan: Expand the commuter rail system -> Give more people the option to travel by train

The goal: Reduce highway congestion

When a recent opinion poll presented this plan to province residents, they overwhelmingly favored it, even though they knew that enacting the plan would mean substantial tax increases.

In the poll, the province residents strongly supported the plan, even though they were aware that they would need to pay substantially increased taxes.

Consequently, the plan, if enacted, is very likely to succeed, because if the people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit.

“Consequently” indicates that the author is making a conclusion here.

Conclusion: If the plan is enacted, the plan is very likely to succeed.

Support to the conclusion: If people are prepared to pay (from the above statement, we know that people are willing to pay substantially increased taxes), they expect to reap the benefits.

The Gist

If the plan (expand the rail system to give more people the option to travel by train) is enacted, the plan is likely to achieve its goal of reducing highway congestion.

Why?

1. People, aware that they would have to pay for the plan through increased taxes, supported the plan.
2. If people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefits

The Gaps

How can we not infer the conclusion from the given support?

1. The poll may not have been conducted properly. The conclusion rests on the poll results. However, if the poll results are not reliable, we cannot arrive at the conclusion.
2. The people who supported the plan may not be the ones who would get access because of the expansion of the rail system. It is possible that the train expansion is expected to take place in some part of the province (let’s say the east part), and other parts of the province (let’s say the west part) support the plan. Why would residents of the west part support the plan of expanding the rail system in the east part? Probably, because residents of the west part are aware that if residents of the east part travel by train, the province will have less pollution.

There can, of course, be other gaps in the argument




The question stem uses the word “Inference” to refer to the conclusion. We’re asked to find a reason for which the conclusion can be criticized most strongly. (To do so, we need to have EXACT understanding of the conclusion and the premises)




(A) it overlooks the possibility that once the highways are consistently uncongested, some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.

Incorrect. Let’s understand the meaning of option A. I believe that many of us don’t even understand the exact meaning of this option; we’re so eager to evaluate it

The option says that the conclusion overlooks the possibility.

Which possibility?

The possibility that once the highways are consistently uncongested… (The possibility pertains to the situation in which highways are uncongested, i.e., the goal has been achieved. Did you realize that this option was talking about what would happen post the realization of the goal?)

“some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.”

Do you realize that this is talking about commuters switching from using their car to using the rail system?

Are these commuters currently using their car or using the rail system?

They are using their cars. (That’s why we’re talking about switching from using their car)

So, essentially, this part is saying that these commuters who are still using their car might have no motivation to switch to the rail system.

***
Now, stichting the two parts together - the option talks about the possibility that once the highways are uncongested, some commuters who will still be using their cars might have no motivation to switch to the rail system.

Thus, in a way, the possibility is that once the highways are consistently uncongested, there will be no more reduction in congestion.

The million-dollar question is whether this possibility matters to the argument.

It does not.

The goal of reduction of congestion has been achieved. Now, whether there is more reduction or not doesn’t matter to the argument.

****

Let me talk about the following version of option A:

A1: it overlooks the possibility that once the highways are consistently uncongested, NO commuters WILL have the motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.

This is an extreme variation of option A. While option A said that some might not have the motivation, A1 says that no one will have the motivation.

Is this possibility relevant to the argument?

The answer is, again, No. The reasons are also the same as given above. Once the highways are consistently uncongested, we’re not concerned whether there is even more reduction in congestion. Our goal (reduction in congestion) has been achieved. We have achieved salvation!

*****
Let me talk about another version of option A:

A2: it overlooks the possibility that some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.

A2 differs from option A in that A2 doesn’t have the condition “once the highways are consistently uncongested”.

Is the possibility covered by A2 relevant to the argument?

Yes. It’s not completely irrelevant.

Can we weaken the argument by presenting this possibility, i.e., by saying that some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system?

Not really.

It’s important to be aware that “some” means at least one. So, the guaranteed information from saying this is simply that one commuter might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.

How much impact would knowing about one commuter make to the argument?

Hardly any.

Thus, even A2 will be an incorrect option.

(B) the favorable responses collected are entirely consistent with every one of those respondents expecting that it would be others who, by using the rail system, would ease highway congestion.

Correct. This option talks about the favorable responses, i.e., people who supported the plan even while being aware that they would have to pay more taxes. These favorable responses are entirely consistent with every one of these people expecting others to use the rail system and thus reduce highway congestion.

If everyone is expecting others to use the rail system, then we have a reason to believe that “nobody” will use the rail system once it is expanded. Thus, it seems more likely to me now that there will be no reduction in highway congestion. Thus, it seems more likely that the plan will fail to achieve its goal.

So, this option is correct.

(Are you wondering, “if these people are not even using the rail system, why were they willing to pay for it? The argument talks about reaping the benefits. Isn’t this option going against this part of the argument?

No need to worry. These people were indeed expecting to reap the benefits. They were expecting to reap the benefit of uncongested highways. They were thinking, “others will use the rail system, and I’ll enjoy the uncongested highways.”)

***

Let me now create a variation of option B:

B1: Some of the respondents who responded favorably to the poll expected that it would be others who, by using the rail system, would ease highway congestion.

Would B1 also be correct?

No.

The goal is a reduction in congestion, not the elimination of congestion. Thus, even if some (at least one) respondents would not use the rail system, the argument would not be impacted.

***

Perhaps, you can begin to appreciate how “some” can make an option incorrect.

Does it mean that all options having “some” are incorrect?

No. Here’s one question with “some” in the correct option.

(C) those respondents who opposed the plan might nevertheless become users of the rail system as a result of its expansion.

Incorrect.
This option is in the opposite direction. We’re looking for an option with which we can criticize the conclusion.

This option supports the conclusion. If these respondents also might become users of the rail system, then the goal (of reducing highway congestion) is even more likely to be achieved.

(D) those respondents who opposed the plan might oppose it for reasons other than the tax increase required to carry it out.

Incorrect. This option says that the opponents of the plan might have other reasons to oppose the plan.

However, whether there are other reasons these opponents have to oppose the plan is NOT RELEVANT to the argument. Those people anyway oppose the plan. What their reasons are is irrelevant.

(E) residents responding to the poll are likely to overestimate the tax increase they themselves will experience if the proposed expansion occurs.

Incorrect. This option indicates that the residents who responded to the poll overestimated the tax increase, i.e., they thought they’d have to pay Rs 100 more as tax whereas they’d need to pay just Rs 50 more as tax.

So what?

They were willing to pay Rs 100, and the argument reasons that if the people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit.

Given that the argument’s reasoning revolves around what people are prepared to pay and not what people end up paying, this option doesn’t impact the argument.

between A vs B:
Looks weakner from surface but actually have many problems:

1. overlooks the possibility: something that is not sure but a possibility --> may or may not be valid- reject reason 1
2. once the highgways are consistenly uncongested:--> If condition --> what if , no if condition that this option would strenghten. I need to look for a choice that always weakened but not weaken only on some if condition.--> reject reason2
3. Some --> Some can be 1 % or 99% , varying this quantity would vary our results ---> become irrelevant
4. might have no motivation:--> again possibility --> what if have motivation? then again this option would not be valid

I hope you can understand why this option has so many problems
Let's see B:


favorable responses ---> valid for others---> no if condition but what they respond is not meant for others
every one of those--> all people ( no some no few)--> pretty straightforward shouting at us to pick this choice:)

now I hope you can see the difference and how B is easy winner:)

I hope it helps

B for me. If every person thinks that others will use the rail but not himself, then the plan will fail. A doesn't guarantee that the highway will remain congested after implementation of new rails, cause we don't know how large is the number of some commuters

Sent from my SM-E700H using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hello, sagarsangani123. Choice (B) is mealymouthed, so I understand why you found it difficult to sort out. How about we break it down?


Okay, what this is indicating is that everyone who favored the plan expected other people to use the rail system, not themselves. This would understandably present a problem with a plan that was designed to reduce highway congestion. (Everyone would, apparently, still be driving their cars.) How do we tease out that (B) is saying this, though?

The first part: the favorable responses collected are entirely consistent with
Analysis: To be consistent with indicates that a certain logic holds. This particular logic pertains to favorable responses. In light of the rest of the sentence, which gives us the details we need, this part could probably be set aside. All it tells us is that whatever information follows is what we would expect of the favorable responses that were given.

The latter part: every one of those respondents expecting that it would be others who, by using the rail system, would ease highway congestion
Analysis: I would start by jumping over the self-contained phrase to follow the main thread. Not just some, but every single one of the residents who favored enacting the plan expected that others would reduce highway congestion. How? Now we can add that phrase back in. Those others would use the rail system.

Now it should all be coming together. I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

B - the favorable responses collected are entirely consistent with every one of those respondents expecting that it would be others who, by using the rail system, would ease highway congestion. -- Thus if each one expects the other to use the train (and not themselves) ;they essentially negate each other's intentions, and hence no one uses the train.

A) it overlooks the possibility that once the highways are consistently uncongested, some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.
But it still means that people have started using the rail system enough that the roads are uncongested.

B) the favorable responses collected are entirely consistent with every one of those respondents expecting that it would be others who, by using the rail system, would ease highway congestion.
Correct. If the survey responses are flawed then the entire argument gets questioned.

C) those respondents who opposed the plan might nevertheless become users of the rail system as a result of its expansion.
Irrelevant.

D) those respondents who opposed the plan might oppose it for reasons other than the tax increase required to carry it out.
Irrelevent

E) residents responding to the poll are likely to overestimate the tax increase they themselves will experience if the proposed expansion occurs.
Irrelevant.

Very similar question:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-recent-pol ... 47330.html

Dear expert,
I have serious doubts about the correct answer choice. To me, the reading contends that the plan is very likely to succeed because if people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit.
The question asks for possible ways of weakening this argument. We can attack the argument by using its underlying assumption (when people pay more for something, they will probably use it more). What if people have over estimated the amount of tax that they should pay? If people have over estimated the amount of tax, they will no longer have enough motivation to use the rail system (because they have paid just a few), so the main conclusion of the argument which is success of the plan won't be achieved.

Can someone please explain the meaning of answer choice (B). The words seem very confusing.

Thanks

Hi Experts

I am stuck between A & B, could you please help? Both options are weakener in my understanding.

How I broke down the argument?
- Plan: Reduce congestion via expanding rail
- Poll: People liked the idea despite knowing there would be "substantial tax" increases - why would people do this?? (Would you be happy to pay more tax??)
- Conclusion: plan is VERY LIKELY to succeed because people are prepared to pay and expect benefit

A) it overlooks the possibility that once the highways are consistently uncongested, some commuters might have no motivation to switch from using their car to using the rail system.
Plan doesn't need everyone to use the rail - if the highways are uncongested it is good - plan is achieved - we don't care about the last 5% of cars on the road

B) the favorable responses collected are entirely consistent with every one of those respondents expecting that it would be others who, by using the rail system, would ease highway congestion.
This is the answer - the majority of respondents who "overwhelmingly favored it" believe THEY THEMSELVES won't be using the rail but "OTHERS" - the survey could be wrong and therefore inference could be wrong

C) those respondents who opposed the plan might nevertheless become users of the rail system as a result of its expansion.
Perhaps a slight strengthener to the inference - therefore it is not CRITICISM to the conclusion at hand

D) those respondents who opposed the plan might oppose it for reasons other than the tax increase required to carry it out.
There are other potential reasons for respondents to oppose the plan - I was considering this option BUT it does not specify WHAT those other reasons are?? For example if it said "those respondents who opposed the plan might be opposed to it because the rail system is likely to ruin homes, close roads" - it could of been more compelling

E) residents responding to the poll are likely to overestimate the tax increase they themselves will experience if the proposed expansion occurs.
This could mean that the poll results are conservative - the tax increases they expect are actually lower - this does not ATTACK the reasoning/conclusion