Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1308:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 4 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we tackle the most intimidating CR question type: Boldface & "Legalese" questions. If you've ever stared at an answer choice that reads, "The first is a consideration introduced to counter a position that...- May 14
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Most GMAT test-takers are intimidated by the hardest GMAT Verbal questions. In this session, Target Test Prep GMAT instructor Erika Tyler-John, a 100th percentile GMAT scorer, will show you how top scorers break down challenging Verbal questions..
26 Jun 2008, 07:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
People should switch from driving their cars to work on the weekdays to taking public transportation such as buses and subways. In major cities such as New York, London, or tokyo, for example, cars are an expensive and inefficient means of transportation and fossil fuel emissions are the major source of city's pollution.
all of the following are assumptions in the argument except :
1. there may be easier ways to combat pollution in large cities than by having people switch to taking public transportation
2. There are enough people who actually own cars, which are currently being used to drive to work, to make this plan realistically feasible.
3. Public transportation is both available and accessible should someone wish to switch.
4. Current public transportation systems can accomodate all the people who decide to switch.
5. The city can afford to pay public transport drivers and related personnel who may otherwiswe remain idle once the morning and evening rush hour periods are over.
assumption is that less expensive and efficient means are available to switch - I don't understand where does the fossil fuel comes in play.
I am going with D. (4). Please reply with your responses. Thanks
all of the following are assumptions in the argument except :
1. there may be easier ways to combat pollution in large cities than by having people switch to taking public transportation
2. There are enough people who actually own cars, which are currently being used to drive to work, to make this plan realistically feasible.
3. Public transportation is both available and accessible should someone wish to switch.
4. Current public transportation systems can accomodate all the people who decide to switch.
5. The city can afford to pay public transport drivers and related personnel who may otherwiswe remain idle once the morning and evening rush hour periods are over.
assumption is that less expensive and efficient means are available to switch - I don't understand where does the fossil fuel comes in play.
I am going with D. (4). Please reply with your responses. Thanks
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
26 Jun 2008, 08:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
I will go with A (1)
QS supports switching to public transportation and avoid pollution.
To me, only choice which goes against it is A
1. there may be easier ways to combat pollution in large cities than by having people switch to taking public transportation
QS supports switching to public transportation and avoid pollution.
To me, only choice which goes against it is A
1. there may be easier ways to combat pollution in large cities than by having people switch to taking public transportation
26 Jun 2008, 08:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
[quote="alimad"]People should switch from driving their cars to work on the weekdays to taking public transportation such as buses and subways. In major cities such as New York, London, or tokyo, for example, cars are an expensive and inefficient means of transportation and fossil fuel emissions are the major source of city's pollution.
all of the following are assumptions in the argument except :
1. there may be easier ways to combat pollution in large cities than by having people switch to taking public transportation
correct answer..Argument does not consider any other ways to combat pollution other than reaching out for public transporation.So it does not asssume this one.
2. There are enough people who actually own cars, which are currently being used to drive to work, to make this plan realistically feasible.
argument assumes that the plan is going to be feasable.
3. Public transportation is both available and accessible should someone wish to switch.
argument assumes that transporation is available for all.
4. Current public transportation systems can accomodate all the people who decide to switch.
argument assumes that transporation is available for all.
5. The city can afford to pay public transport drivers and related personnel who may otherwiswe remain idle once the morning and evening rush hour periods are over.
argument assumes this one also.
all of the following are assumptions in the argument except :
1. there may be easier ways to combat pollution in large cities than by having people switch to taking public transportation
correct answer..Argument does not consider any other ways to combat pollution other than reaching out for public transporation.So it does not asssume this one.
2. There are enough people who actually own cars, which are currently being used to drive to work, to make this plan realistically feasible.
argument assumes that the plan is going to be feasable.
3. Public transportation is both available and accessible should someone wish to switch.
argument assumes that transporation is available for all.
4. Current public transportation systems can accomodate all the people who decide to switch.
argument assumes that transporation is available for all.
5. The city can afford to pay public transport drivers and related personnel who may otherwiswe remain idle once the morning and evening rush hour periods are over.
argument assumes this one also.
