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
05 Sep 2015, 06:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
AWA stem:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.”
My Essay:
The argument presented in the editorial section of newspaper claims that either the parking price of subway stations should be increased or the shuttle bus fares should be decreased, if the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to subway station rather than drive there. To support the conclusion the argument presents the fact that commuter use of the new subway trains is exceeding the projections but the commuter use of shuttle buses is below the projected volume. Clearly, the argument is illogical because it makes assumptions without substantiation. Further, the argument assumes that the cited correlation is causal. Moreover, the arguments presents a distorted view of the situation by considering one of the causes as the only cause affecting the outcome while ignoring other plausible causes.
The argument assumes that projection for commuter use of the transit buses was not more aggressive than the projection for commuter use of the subway trains. For example, it is possible that the projection of commuter use for transit buses did not account for train commuters living close to the subway station, who walk to the station rather than use bus. It is also possible that the bus service is not frequent enough or does not run on time, forcing commuters to drive to station rather than wait for next bus and miss the train in the process. For such cases, the projection for bus commuters should be less aggressive than the projection for the commuters of subway train. For instance, if it is discovered that the projection for commuter bus had not accounted for differences in usage, the projection for commuters of bus will in effect be more aggressive than the projection for commuters of subway train.
Further, the argument will fall apart, if it is discovered that rapid development near the subway train station has led to more train commuter living closer to the subway station than the number of commuters staying further away. Clearly, the commuters staying at a close distance from subway station will not use the transit buses immaterial of whether the bus fare is decreased or whether the parking charges is increased. In light of such a possibility the conclusion of the argument is further weakened.
However, the presented argument is not entirely baseless. It is conceivable that projection for shuttle bus usage had accounted for difference in shuttle usage and subway train usage. But, such a fact comparing the projections has not been presented by the author of the argument. To illustrate let us consider the possibility that bus shuttle schedule can be adjusted to save time of the commuters, thereby mitigating the low usage of shuttle bus service. But, the argument neither explores such a possibility nor presents fact to refute it. If such causes are evaluated and presented, the argument will become stronger.
For the reasons stated above, one cannot deny that the argument is deeply flawed. To mitigate the weaknesses of the argument and reinforce the conclusion the author must conduct and present a few evaluations. For instance, the author must survey the commuters of transit buses to evaluate the factors affecting their choice of bus. Further, the author must evaluate whether there exists a trend among those commuters in order to figure out their reasons for using transit buses. A similar survey must be done for those who use subway train but do not use the transit bus to commute to stations. The findings must be evaluated on similar lines to draw the reasons for their choice. Finally, the author must place the findings in larger context of customer behavior to draw irrefutable conclusion for user preference. In absence of such a fool proof evaluation the argument remains tenuous and unconvincing and its conclusion remains debatable.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations.”
My Essay:
The argument presented in the editorial section of newspaper claims that either the parking price of subway stations should be increased or the shuttle bus fares should be decreased, if the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to subway station rather than drive there. To support the conclusion the argument presents the fact that commuter use of the new subway trains is exceeding the projections but the commuter use of shuttle buses is below the projected volume. Clearly, the argument is illogical because it makes assumptions without substantiation. Further, the argument assumes that the cited correlation is causal. Moreover, the arguments presents a distorted view of the situation by considering one of the causes as the only cause affecting the outcome while ignoring other plausible causes.
The argument assumes that projection for commuter use of the transit buses was not more aggressive than the projection for commuter use of the subway trains. For example, it is possible that the projection of commuter use for transit buses did not account for train commuters living close to the subway station, who walk to the station rather than use bus. It is also possible that the bus service is not frequent enough or does not run on time, forcing commuters to drive to station rather than wait for next bus and miss the train in the process. For such cases, the projection for bus commuters should be less aggressive than the projection for the commuters of subway train. For instance, if it is discovered that the projection for commuter bus had not accounted for differences in usage, the projection for commuters of bus will in effect be more aggressive than the projection for commuters of subway train.
Further, the argument will fall apart, if it is discovered that rapid development near the subway train station has led to more train commuter living closer to the subway station than the number of commuters staying further away. Clearly, the commuters staying at a close distance from subway station will not use the transit buses immaterial of whether the bus fare is decreased or whether the parking charges is increased. In light of such a possibility the conclusion of the argument is further weakened.
However, the presented argument is not entirely baseless. It is conceivable that projection for shuttle bus usage had accounted for difference in shuttle usage and subway train usage. But, such a fact comparing the projections has not been presented by the author of the argument. To illustrate let us consider the possibility that bus shuttle schedule can be adjusted to save time of the commuters, thereby mitigating the low usage of shuttle bus service. But, the argument neither explores such a possibility nor presents fact to refute it. If such causes are evaluated and presented, the argument will become stronger.
For the reasons stated above, one cannot deny that the argument is deeply flawed. To mitigate the weaknesses of the argument and reinforce the conclusion the author must conduct and present a few evaluations. For instance, the author must survey the commuters of transit buses to evaluate the factors affecting their choice of bus. Further, the author must evaluate whether there exists a trend among those commuters in order to figure out their reasons for using transit buses. A similar survey must be done for those who use subway train but do not use the transit bus to commute to stations. The findings must be evaluated on similar lines to draw the reasons for their choice. Finally, the author must place the findings in larger context of customer behavior to draw irrefutable conclusion for user preference. In absence of such a fool proof evaluation the argument remains tenuous and unconvincing and its conclusion remains debatable.
Moderators:
188 posts
