Reasoning....
Raise in bus tickets from 1 to 1.25
But to help poor customers, 18 tickets are being sold for 20$ that is savings of 2.5$ as 18*1.25 =22.5$
PROPOSAL:- to keep the price of each fare tickets same but sell for a smaller amount as people will not have 20$ to spare at one go..

Assumption for this alternate proposal??

Clearly if the proposal is to keep the amount to 10$ because 20$ may be higher for the poor customers, then proposal believes that it will be easy for them to spare 10$ at one go.

This is exactly given by C

Why not E?

But the reason E is not the answer and different from C..
Para talks of the relationship between people who can buy 18 tickets and 9 tickets but it could be possible that only one % of people could buy 18 tickets and people who could buy 9 tickets is slightly better say just 2% buying it.
But our answer has to be something which conveys the ease of most of the people in buying 9 tickets which is given by C

C
_________________

As with all GMAT CR questions, it's best to stick to a simple, flexible process rather than trying to pigeonhole questions into "types" and switching up your process on each question (more on our recommended process here).

First, let's break down the structure of the passage.

We first hear about an issue, and the city of Workney's proposed solution to the issue:

• The passage opens with a fact: The city of Workney is "raising bus fares from $1.00 to $1.25."
• There is an issue with this fact: the increased bus fare will create an "extra burden... on the city’s poor people"
• The city comes up with a plan to solve the above issue: they'll offer a discount when you buy a bunch of tickets at once! Specifically, "18 fare tokens [will] be sold for $20.00."

However, some people are critical of the above plan.

• These critics have offered an alternative plan: "that 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00." Notice that this results in the same price per ticket as the "18 for $20" plan -- under each plan, people will have to pay about $1.11 per ticket.
• So, how do the critics support their alternate plan? They say that "a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders." In other words, poor people will struggle to come up with the $20, so they need an option that doesn't cost so much up front.

The question asks which answer choice is an assumption on which the alternative proposal depends. So, we're looking for something that MUST be true in order for the "alternative plan" to make any sense.

Critics have proposed their alternative plan to address a specific issue: that $20 is too much for poor bus riders to pay at once. Does this plan depend on poor residents riding the bus just as much as they used to?

Not necessarily. Maybe some poor residents will choose to walk instead of ride the bus when the fares increase, even if they CAN afford to pay for the "9 for $10" plan. As long as the critics' plan resolves the issue of the $20 upfront charge, it doesn't matter if the number of poor residents riding the bus remains exactly the same after the fare increase.

Eliminate (A).


Again, the point of the alternate plan is to make it so poor people don't have to pay $20 at one time. It doesn't matter if riders who are NOT poor also take advantage of the deal.

(B) doesn't HAVE to be true, so get rid of it.


This one HAS to be true for the critics' plan to make any sense. The argument against the "18 for $20" plan is that $20 is too much for poor people to pay all at once. So, what if that's true of the "9 for $10" plan as well? Then the alternative plan doesn't fix the problem at all.

The alternative plan depends on (C), so (C) is the correct answer.


The purpose of the alternate plan is to lessen the burden of increased bus fares on poor people. It doesn't matter why the fares are being raised in the first place -- perhaps the city is purchasing new buses, or perhaps the mayor will use the funds to install golden toilets in her mansion. The use of the fares doesn't change the fact that $20 is too much for a poor bus rider to pay at one time.

The argument doesn't depend on the fares being used for new buses, so (D) is out.


The critics argue that the "9 for $10" deal is best because poor people are UNABLE to pay $20 all at once. So, does it need to be true that people in general will more regularly purchase the "9 for $10" deal?

Not necessarily. Maybe the richer people in town would actually prefer the "18 for $20" deal for some reason, and would purchase this package more regularly. Maybe the opposite is true, and rich people as well as poor people prefer the "9 for $10" deal.

So, it's not 100% necessary that people WOULD buy the "9 for $10" deal more regularly. It just matters that poor people are ABLE to pay the $10 upfront.

For this reason, you can get rid of (E).

(C) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

How is E different from C then, it indirectly states that more people can afford a 10 dollar ticket

My reasoning for ruling out E, not sure if its the correct one.


The argument discusses the 9-token fare in the context of poor people. While option E feels like something which may be valid for all users even those who are not poor.

In this type of Assumption Qs, its better to opt for NEGATION of choices to see whether conclusion stands still.

Conclusion: 10$ for 9 fare token would not be prohibitive for poor.

A. Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase.: NEGATION of this sentence do not have any impact on sentence.
B. Riders who are poor would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would riders who are not poor.: Out of scope. Does'nt impact Conclusion.
C. The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor.: NEGATION shatters the conclusion.
D. The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city’s bus system.:Out of scope. Does'nt impact Conclusion.
E. Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once: We are concerned about 20$ affecting POOR riders. Does'nt impact Conclusion.

The conclusion is that since poor riders will not be able to pay 20$ in one go to buy 18 tokens,why not make it to 9 tokens for 10$.

Pre-thinking is very important.We need to see whether the poor riders will be able to pay 10$.Look for answers

A. Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase.

Even if the number goes down,there are still some poor riders who will take the bus. So this will have no impact.

B. Riders who are poor would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would riders who are not poor.

We are not comapring Poor vs non poor. No mention of non poor in the argument. Irrelevant.

C. The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor.

Negate this and the conclusion falls apart. If the poor riders cannot afford to pay 10$,the conclusion doesn't stands.
Bingo!!

D. The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city’s bus system.

Why the increase is made is not relevant here. Irrelevant.

E. Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once

This will weaken the conclusion in some sense.

You see C is correct choice.
_________________

The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from $1.00 to $1.25, proposed that 18 fare tokens be sold for $20.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city’s poor people. Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00, because a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders.

Prethinking: If $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders and $10.00 is good for them, then we can say that they prefer to spend $10.00 for 9 tokens and would not be a burden on them.

The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase.// Then the propasal is waste//
B. Riders who are poor would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would riders who are not poor.// We are not concerned about their savings//
C. The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor.// This seems to be the correct option because on negating the conclusion gets altered// And this is also giving reason why 9 token strategy is to be opted because it skips the problems associated with 18 token strategy.

D. The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city’s bus system.// Out of scope//

E. Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once// No talks about poor rider and 9 token strategy so out of concern//

Hello chetan2u,
I am having the same doubt as Kunal760.
Please explain.

Sorry missed out earlier as I was not tagged.
But the reason E is not the answer and different from C..
Para talks of the relationship between people who can buy 18 tickets and 9 tickets but it could be possible that only one % of people could buy 18 tickets and people who could buy 9 tickets is slightly better say just 2% buying it.
But our answer has to be something which conveys the ease of most of the people in buying 9 tickets which is given by C
_________________

Hello chetan2u,
I am having the same doubt as Kunal760.
Please explain.[/quote]

Sorry missed out earlier as I was not tagged.
But the reason E is not the answer and different from C..
Para talks of the relationship between people who can buy 18 tickets and 9 tickets but it could be possible that only one % of people could buy 18 tickets and people who could buy 9 tickets is slightly better say just 2% buying it.
But our answer has to be something which conveys the ease of most of the people in buying 9 tickets which is given by C[/quote]

Thanks a lot chetan2u.

My simple explanation on why Option E is not correct -

E. Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once

Reason 1 - Lets assume 60% riders regularly purchase 18 tokens. And 40% riders regularly purchase 9 fare tokens.
Now what if the poor riders are a part of this 40%? This choice falls apart.

Reason 2 - We need something that says "poor riders" will benefit from this. This option does not say anything much about poor riders.

Focus on the conclusion and pre-think what is needed as an assumption.

Hope it helps. Please correct me if my analysis is wrong.

Hi,

I do not understand how E is wrong? Also, how can the negation of choice E be?

The city of Workney, in raising bus fares from $1.00 to $1.25, proposed that 18 fare tokens be sold for $20.00 to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city’s poor people. Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00, because a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders.

The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?



In the above sentence, conclusion is "9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00, because a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders."

Prethink:

Assumption Must always be true for the conclusion to hold TRUE.

The negation of the assumption shatters the conclusion.

so, we need answer which says that poor riders aren't prohibited from increase in price.



(A) Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase. - contender - negation of this statement is Poor residents of Workney will not continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase

we don't know whether they are all or few. - so, negation doesn't shatter the conclusion.


(B) Riders who are poor would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would riders who are not poor. - This just supports the concluson but the negation doesnot shatter.

(C) The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor. negation shatters the conclusion.

(D) The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city’s bus system. - irrelevant

(E) Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once - irelevant

GMATNinja please explain the approach towards solving such type of questions

Is 10$ outlay fine with poor riders? The author seems to assume its fine.
The alternative proposal depends on which of the following assumptions?


(A) Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase. - this is a prediction post the plan/proposal is implemented. Irrelevant. Reject.

(B) Riders who are poor would be more likely to take advantage of the savings afforded by the 9-token offer than would riders who are not poor.- What the poor riders do by saving money by buying 9 fare tokens instead of 18 fare tokens is none of our concern. Reject.

(C) The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor. - Exactly, to the point. Bingo!

(D) The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city’s bus system. - just states the need to increase the fare. Isn't an assumption. Reject.

(E) Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once - are these fewer the poor riders? And are we looking to increase revenue of the city or finding out whether the alternate proposal makes sense for the poor riders? The latter one, which this question does not answer. Reject

Some kudos and your analysis will help me reach a score of 700!!


Posted from my mobile device
_________________