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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
07 Dec 2015, 08:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
.While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building newlines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.. Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument that the government should lower property taxes levied on railroad companies, whereas to levy property tax on trucking companies is flawed. This line of reasoning is supported with unsubstantiated reasoning: trains consume less fuel & more environment friendly than trucks, no need to build new rail lines with increase in rail traffic, and rail companies’ payment for maintaining and upgrading their facilities is unwarranted.
The author’ main argument is that trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of maintenance costs and no property tax, whereas railroad companies pay property taxes and maintenance costs. To pay taxes on the basis of usage of infrastructure may sound logical, but this argument does not sound completely logical, because rail roads are exclusively used by railways, whereas roads or highways are used not only by trucks but also by other automobiles: cars, vans, scooters or buses. So, there is possibility that the number of cars or buses used highways per hour in a day is more than that of trucks, justifying a portion of highway maintenance costs paid by trucks.
The another argument that trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport may seem logical. However, the quality or type of fuel used by trains is of high quality or grade than that used by trucks, so the cost of railroad fuel is more per litre/kg than that of truck fuel, making rail fuel more expensive even if used one-third of quantity in comparison to truck fuel. Additionally, rail fuel may emit more pollutants: CO, NO or hydrocarbons per milligram than those emitted by trucks fuel. So, even at one – third fuel consumption, rail fuel pollutes more than truck fuel.
Finally, author states that because of sufficient railroad, there is no need to build new rail lines with increase of rail traffic, saving tax payers money. Although, there may be no expenses because of adequate existing railroads, the increase in maintenance cost of rail road is higher than the maintenance cost involved with highways. The maintenance cost of railroads will increase many folds with increase in traffic in comparison to cost incurred in maintaining roads or highways.
To conclude, author can make this argument more logical by considering additional reasoning or assumptions: costs involved are not only capital or building costs but also operational or maintenance costs, trucks may use roads for fewer number of hours than other automobiles, justifying less taxes levied on them, cost of railfuel /ltr or kg is higher than that truck fuel, and rail fuel may emit more pollutants per unit than truck fuel.
.While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building newlines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.. Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument that the government should lower property taxes levied on railroad companies, whereas to levy property tax on trucking companies is flawed. This line of reasoning is supported with unsubstantiated reasoning: trains consume less fuel & more environment friendly than trucks, no need to build new rail lines with increase in rail traffic, and rail companies’ payment for maintaining and upgrading their facilities is unwarranted.
The author’ main argument is that trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of maintenance costs and no property tax, whereas railroad companies pay property taxes and maintenance costs. To pay taxes on the basis of usage of infrastructure may sound logical, but this argument does not sound completely logical, because rail roads are exclusively used by railways, whereas roads or highways are used not only by trucks but also by other automobiles: cars, vans, scooters or buses. So, there is possibility that the number of cars or buses used highways per hour in a day is more than that of trucks, justifying a portion of highway maintenance costs paid by trucks.
The another argument that trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport may seem logical. However, the quality or type of fuel used by trains is of high quality or grade than that used by trucks, so the cost of railroad fuel is more per litre/kg than that of truck fuel, making rail fuel more expensive even if used one-third of quantity in comparison to truck fuel. Additionally, rail fuel may emit more pollutants: CO, NO or hydrocarbons per milligram than those emitted by trucks fuel. So, even at one – third fuel consumption, rail fuel pollutes more than truck fuel.
Finally, author states that because of sufficient railroad, there is no need to build new rail lines with increase of rail traffic, saving tax payers money. Although, there may be no expenses because of adequate existing railroads, the increase in maintenance cost of rail road is higher than the maintenance cost involved with highways. The maintenance cost of railroads will increase many folds with increase in traffic in comparison to cost incurred in maintaining roads or highways.
To conclude, author can make this argument more logical by considering additional reasoning or assumptions: costs involved are not only capital or building costs but also operational or maintenance costs, trucks may use roads for fewer number of hours than other automobiles, justifying less taxes levied on them, cost of railfuel /ltr or kg is higher than that truck fuel, and rail fuel may emit more pollutants per unit than truck fuel.
Moderators:
188 posts
