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
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
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
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.
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.
[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.
A for me...the verbiage clearly refers to NOT an assumption. Answer choice A is actually saying even public transportation is probably not the best...nothing to do with the assumption in the argument. What is the OA?
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
Show more
The argument centers on tha fact that switching to public transport can reduce pollution. No other option to reduce pollution is discussed.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.