Last visit was: 23 Jul 2024, 04:29 It is currently 23 Jul 2024, 04:29
Toolkit
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

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.

# The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 331 [60]
Given Kudos: 0
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5210 [5]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 27 Apr 2008
Posts: 137
Own Kudos [?]: 215 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [1]
Given Kudos: 15
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
Jasontuyj2012 wrote:
The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, proposed that 18 fare token be sold for \$20.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city's low-income residents. Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for \$10.00, because a \$20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders.

The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?

a) Low-income residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase

b) Low-income riders would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would other riders.

c) The outlay of \$10.00for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for low-income bus riders

d) The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city's bus system

e) Buses provide the only means of public transportation in the city of Workney.

C. The critics assume a \$10.00 outlay would not be prohibitive otherwise no reason for them to propose a \$10.00 outlay.
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2015
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [2]
Given Kudos: 13
Location: India
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Jasonammex wrote:
Why B is not right?

B) Low-income riders would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offerthan
would other riders
.

A per critics , 18-token for \$20 would be prohibitive of the lower income riders. In other words , all types of riders should get equal advantage. No bias .
So, they assumed that the 9-token scheme will not pose any problem for the lower income riders.
Reading once, option B seems to be the perfect contender. However, as highlighted, the 9-token scheme offer is more beneficial to the low-income riders than the other riders. Therefore, this makes the 9-token scheme biased towards the low income riders.

I hope you get it now.
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 128
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 93
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
Can someone explain option B(meaning of option B and why it is not an assumption)?
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 191
Own Kudos [?]: 216 [0]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
mallya12 wrote:
Can someone explain option B(meaning of option B and why it is not an assumption)?

Think of it as.. you have made a plan that instead of increasing money from 18 to 20 increase it from 9 to 10.

And option says that this will benefit the poor.

But what about the ones who are rich? It might be that they welcome the increase of 20 because they have a longer commute and a rise from 9 to 10 will harm them as the ones who have shorter commute ( or maybe some other reason)

The assumptions on which the argument depends has two folds:
1) as mentioned by C
2) the Rich does not pose a problem.

As per option B it seems that the local have more advantage and thus this assumption is not correct as it has a potential to fail the plan to raise the amount from 9 to 10 instead of 18 to 20 considering the advantages of the rich class.

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6991
Own Kudos [?]: 64571 [3]
Given Kudos: 1823
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
3
Kudos
mallya12 wrote:
Can someone explain option B(meaning of option B and why it is not an assumption)?

The "alternate proposal" suggest by critics in the passage is that "9 fare tokens be sold for \$10.00," rather than 18 fare tokens be sold for \$20.00. The critics' reasoning is that "a \$20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders."

Notice that this reasoning only depends on making the bus fare less prohibitive for low-income riders. It does not mention the possible effect of the alternative proposal on other riders.

Now take another look at (B):

Quote:
B. Low-income riders would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would other riders.

This answer choice sets up a comparison between low-income riders and other riders. But according to the passage, the critics have only expressed concern about the outlay for low-income riders. We don't know whether or not "other riders" also take advantage of the 9-token offer, and critics don't necessarily need to care about "other riders" in order to make this alternative proposal.

Because the critics' proposal is not affected one way or another by this answer choice, (B) is not an assumption that the alternative proposal requires.

I hope this helps!
Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2019
Posts: 87
Own Kudos [?]: 32 [1]
Given Kudos: 111
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.24
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
GMATNinja wrote:
mallya12 wrote:
Can someone explain option B(meaning of option B and why it is not an assumption)?

The "alternate proposal" suggest by critics in the passage is that "9 fare tokens be sold for \$10.00," rather than 18 fare tokens be sold for \$20.00. The critics' reasoning is that "a \$20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders."

Notice that this reasoning only depends on making the bus fare less prohibitive for low-income riders. It does not mention the possible effect of the alternative proposal on other riders.

Now take another look at (B):

Quote:
B. Low-income riders would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would other riders.

This answer choice sets up a comparison between low-income riders and other riders. But according to the passage, the critics have only expressed concern about the outlay for low-income riders. We don't know whether or not "other riders" also take advantage of the 9-token offer, and critics don't necessarily need to care about "other riders" in order to make this alternative proposal.

Because the critics' proposal is not affected one way or another by this answer choice, (B) is not an assumption that the alternative proposal requires.

I hope this helps!

Hi GMATNinja

Why is C correct? I don’t understand if C is negated, the conclusion doesn’t fall apart?

Posted from my mobile device
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Posts: 6047
Own Kudos [?]: 4767 [0]
Given Kudos: 463
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
Shef08 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
mallya12 wrote:
Can someone explain option B(meaning of option B and why it is not an assumption)?

The "alternate proposal" suggest by critics in the passage is that "9 fare tokens be sold for \$10.00," rather than 18 fare tokens be sold for \$20.00. The critics' reasoning is that "a \$20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders."

Notice that this reasoning only depends on making the bus fare less prohibitive for low-income riders. It does not mention the possible effect of the alternative proposal on other riders.

Now take another look at (B):

Quote:
B. Low-income riders would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would other riders.

This answer choice sets up a comparison between low-income riders and other riders. But according to the passage, the critics have only expressed concern about the outlay for low-income riders. We don't know whether or not "other riders" also take advantage of the 9-token offer, and critics don't necessarily need to care about "other riders" in order to make this alternative proposal.

Because the critics' proposal is not affected one way or another by this answer choice, (B) is not an assumption that the alternative proposal requires.

I hope this helps!

Hi GMATNinja

Why is C correct? I don’t understand if C is negated, the conclusion doesn’t fall apart?

Posted from my mobile device

The Stimulus states " Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for \$10.00, because a \$20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders."

The statement suggests that shelling out \$20 will be difficult for the low income group , as such a \$10 token will be helpful and will not pinch the pockets of the low income group who has low disposable income.

Now, if we negate option (C) we get " The outlay of \$10.00for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would be prohibitive for low-income bus riders " this clearly shatters the conlusion drawn by the Critic in the last line of the stimulus where he suggested about the \$ 10 fare token...

Hence, Answer has to be (C)
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2018
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [0]
Given Kudos: 382
Location: India
Schools: NUS '20
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
mrblack wrote:
C - the assumption is that \$10 is not prohibitive for the low income people. After reading the question, I was looking for an answer that's along the lines of "low income people don't have the cash flow to buy \$20 in fares at once" but this answer is not amongst the choices given.

i am also thinking the same.Therefore, C is only the best option left.
Current Student
Joined: 02 Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Own Kudos [?]: 70 [0]
Given Kudos: 82
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
WE:Information Technology (Commercial Banking)
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
Critics suggest that 9 fare tokens be sold for \$10.00 instead of 18 fare token for \$20.00 assuming that low-income people might prefer 9 token/10\$ scheme than 18 token/20\$

A. Low-income residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase
>Even if the travelers count increase/decrease, the argument still holds

B. Low-income riders would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would other riders.
>Riders other than low-income group are out of the scope of our discussion

C. The outlay of \$10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for low-income bus riders
>Correct

D. The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city's bus system
> Change in bus system is out of the scope of our discussion

E. Buses provide the only means of public transportation in the city of Workney.
>Information irrelevant for the scope of discussion
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Posts: 314
Own Kudos [?]: 81 [0]
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
GPA: 3.3
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
Conclusion: “Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for \$10.00” [because a \$20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders]
Prethink: is \$10 not too much??
The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Low-income residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase
This doesn’t affect the conclusion. Whether they ride it or not, it doesn’t necessarily impact the prohibitive-ness of to low-income riders.

B. Low-income riders would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would other riders.
Out of scope (comparison) trap – We don’t care about a comparison between low-income and other riders. The argument is about low-income people specifically (and what the impact may be if you go from \$20 -> \$10).

C. The outlay of \$10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for low-income bus riders
Exactly on target with prethink. The stimulus states to go from \$20 deal to \$10 deal for low-income people because the \$20 is too much. But who’s to say that \$10 isn’t too much either?

D. The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city's bus system
Out of scope trap – This is completely irrelevant because this after the fact. After low-income people (assuming they even do because they are able to) purchase the tickets, what happens to that money from the purchase is completely irrelevant to the conclusion.

E. Buses provide the only means of public transportation in the city of Workney.
Out of scope trap – we don’t care about this. We want to know what the impact of \$20 to \$10 is on low-income folks. It doesn’t matter whether buses provide the only means or there are 10 billion other ways of public and private transport.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17527
Own Kudos [?]: 869 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from \$1.00 to \$1.25, propose [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6991 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts