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

Question

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?

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

(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.

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

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

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

OG2019 Question CR01900
A version of this question was published earlier with different answer choices: https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-city-of- ... 19273.html

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

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   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!

chetan2u · Answer

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

Kunal760 · Answer

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

lazybee · Answer

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.

warrior1991 · Answer

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.

jackspire · Answer

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

chetan2u · Answer

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

blitzkriegxX · Answer

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.

ShreyaKohli · Answer

GMATNinja please explain the approach towards solving such type of questions

BelalHossain046 · Answer

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word assumptions in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

W: bus fare $1 → $1.25
 Prop 1: 18 tokens/$20
 Prop 2: 9 tokens/$10 (same $/token; $20 too much if poor)

The question specifically asks for assumptions related to the alternative proposal. So, for the purpose of solving this problem, the conclusion is that 9 tokens should be sold for $10.00. The premise is that $20.00 is too much for poor riders to pay at once.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Find the Assumption questions, the right answer is something that the argument assumes to be true. The assumption is a fact, not stated in the argument, that must be true; if it turns out to be false, the conclusion won’t make logical sense. In this case, the assumption is something that has to be true in order for the critics’ proposal of 9 tokens for $10 to help poor riders.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The critics actually state the opposite of this: that the fare increase will make it more difficult for some poor residents of Workney to ride the bus. Since an assumption will always support the argument, rather than work against it, this cannot be an assumption.

(B) The critics’ argument is only about the impact of the proposal on poor bus riders. In order for the proposal to make logical sense, it only has to be better than the alternative for poor bus riders. This could still be the case even if relatively few poor riders take advantage of the offer, compared to wealthier bus riders who do so.

(C) CORRECT. The critics base their reasoning on the fact that $20.00 is too much for poor bus riders to pay at once. Therefore, riders should only have to pay $10.00. For this to make logical sense, $10.00 must not be an excessive amount to pay at once. If it were, the critics’ conclusion would not be reasonable. So, this answer choice is an assumption.

(D) This answer choice explains why the fare increase is necessary. However, this doesn’t have to be true in order for the critics’ proposal to make sense. For instance, the proposed fare increase could be needed for something completely different, and the need to help poor riders manage the fare increase would still be valid.

(E) The argument deals with the economic impact of the proposal on poor riders, not with the number of tokens sold or how regularly they are sold. This would be relevant to an argument about the overall financial success of the proposal, but this argument deals specifically with one type of impact, which is not related to the number of tokens sold.

Sneha2021 · Answer

KarishmaB 
Is negation correct for E? I was confused how to approach negation in E. 
Why E is incorrect?
(E) Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once
Negation - Fewer rider would not regularly purchase 18 fare token than 9 fare token. May be small no will not prefer 18 over 9. So majority of people will prefer 18 over 9. This would have a negative impact on the argument. However we need to consider extra assumption that these people are poor people.

Let me know the above reasoning is correct.

Thanks in advance!

KarishmaB · Answer

Conclusion: 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00
Premise supporting the conclusion: a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders

When we have a quantifier in the statement, we negate that.

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

Negated (E) More riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once

Does it break our conclusion? No. Even if more riders will purchase 18 fare tokens at once (say so that they don't need to go again and again to buy), they could be the relatively well off people. The poor may not be able to afford 18 fare tokens at once and may prefer 9 fare tokens. 
We are not considering the overall demand of 18 tokens vs 9 tokens. We are trying to make it easier for the poor to take advantage of the offer. Whether others prefer 18 or 9 at once, we don't care. 
Hence (E) is not correct.

EatMyDosa · Answer

GMATNinja ,  KarishmaB ,  chetan2u

If option (E) was written as:

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

then, would option (E) become  required  or  necessary  for the argument to hold? I think that it would become an assumption because it would indicate that $20 outlay has become prohibitive for 'poor riders' and hence lesser no. of them are buying 18 tokens instead of 9 tokens.

GMATNinja · Answer

It's really not worth your time to change answer choices like this... but it is ALWAYS worth your time to eat good dosas.

All you have to do is assess the options given to you instead of making up your own versions. (E) can be eliminated for the reasons outlined in this post. To briefly touch on your rewrite: the alternate plan depends on the 9 tickets for $10 deal not being prohibitive . In other words, we need to assume that poor people are ABLE to pay the $10 if they want to. Does this require us to assume that more poor people would ACTUALLY buy the 9 for $10, as compared to the 18 for $20? I'm not convinced. The argument is satisfied as long as the 9 for $10 isn't prohibitive, regardless of whether poor people ACTUALLY end up buying the tickets. Again, though, this kind of hair-splitting ins't necessary or helpful -- just stick to the answer choices as written and you don't need to wade into this mess.

I hope that helps!

krndatta · Answer

KarishmaB  Ma'am,

I eliminated option E because the option says "fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once...." So this option talks about all the riders. Our conclusion is focused on "poor riders". So hence this is an incorrect answer choice.

Is my analysis correct?

ArnauG · Answer

The alternative proposal depends on the assumption described in option (C): The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor.

The alternative proposal suggests selling 9 fare tokens for $10.00 as a way to alleviate the burden of the fare increase on poor riders. This proposal assumes that the cost of $10.00 for 9 tokens would not be considered prohibitively expensive for those who are financially disadvantaged. In other words, it assumes that poor bus riders would still find this alternative affordable and accessible.

If the outlay of $10.00 for 9 fare tokens is considered too expensive for poor riders, then the alternative proposal would not effectively address the concerns of the critics. Therefore, option (C) is the assumption on which the alternative proposal depends.

stackskillz · Answer

This is the solution I came up with:

Conc: Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00 instead of 18 for $20.00.

(A)  Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase  - Answers the question - "Will the fare increase be unpopular or cause decrease in ridership?" Do we really need an answer to this question to justify the alternate plan for 10$ instead of 20$ plan. Nope.  Drop

(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 option distinguishes between poor and not-poor riders. However, it doesn't defintely claim that poor rider can't or won't take advantage of savings afforded by the 18-token offer.  Drop

(C)  The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor -   Straightforward. Let's negate to test. "An outlay of $10.00 is prohibitive for poor riders." Hmm.. the alternative plan suggested 9 for $10 plan instead of 18 for $20 on the reasoning that $20 is prohibitive, thereby assuming that $10.00 is not as prohibitive for the poor riders. The negation does break the conclusion.  Keep

(D)  The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city’s bus system.  - Doesn't really answer the question why 10$ instead of 20$.  Drop

(E)  Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once  - This suggests more riders would purchase 10$ tokens more regularly than then 20$ tokens. This does slightly support the conclusion, but is it necessary? Let's negate, i.e, "More people will regularly purchase 20$ token than the 10$, however, the 20$ token would be prohibitive for poor riders". This statement does make sense, i.e., both can co-exist, so not a necessary assumption.  Drop

dhairya18 · Answer

Step 1: Identify the conclusion
9 fare tokens should be sold for $10.00 to help poor riders.

Step 2 and 3: Line of reasoning
Premise: 18 tokens for $20.00 is prohibitive for poor riders.
Conclusion: Offer 9 tokens for $10.00 instead.
Link: $10.00 for 9 tokens = Affordable/Non-prohibitive for poor riders
Structure: Comparison / Cause-Effect Argument

Step 4: Paraphrase (CRux of CR Table - Cause-Effect / Comparison)
Based on rules: The alternative remedy ($10.00 for 9 tokens) must actually work, meaning that $10.00 is an amount that poor riders can actually afford and is not prohibitive.

Step 5: Option Analysis
(A) Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase.
Explanation: Constant ridership volume across all poor residents is not required for this token pricing adjustment.
(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.
Explanation: Relative adoption rates between poor and non-poor riders are out of scope.
(C) The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor.
Explanation: Correct. Matches the paraphrase by ensuring that $10.00 is actually affordable, allowing the alternative solution to work.
(D) The proposed fare increase is needed for the purchase of new buses for the city's bus system.
Explanation: The financial motivation behind the fare hike is irrelevant to the token package affordability.
(E) Fewer riders would regularly purchase 18 fare tokens at once than would purchase only 9 fare tokens at once.
Explanation: Overall purchasing preference across all riders does not address whether poor riders specifically can afford $10.00.

officiisnobis · Answer

Conclusion - Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00, because a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for poor riders.
Prethinking - so, $10 will not be?

(A) Poor residents of Workney will continue to ride the buses in the same numbers despite the fare increase. -> conclusion is not related to number of riders.

(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. -> okay, but wouldn't 18 token better option then? also, it compares poor and not poor riders.

(C) The outlay of $10.00 for the purchase of 9 fare tokens would not be prohibitive for bus riders who are poor. - YES CORRECT ANSWER

(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 - we do not care about the number of purchases rather we care about if they can buy it or not.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards