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 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 $10.00 for 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.

ID - CR01900

Another version of this question is published in OG2019: https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-city-of- ... 71655.html

Show Answer

Official Answer

C

MartyTargetTestPrep · Accepted Answer

The assumption will be information necessary for the EVIDENCE in this argument to support the CONCLUSION of this argument.

In this case, the conclusion is not stated directly. However we can gather that the following is the conclusion:

Selling 9 fare tokens for $10 is a better way to alleviate the extra burden of the fare increase on the city's low-income residents than is selling 18 fare tokens for $20.

The evidence supporting this conclusion is the following:

A $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders.

Incorrect. Going from the fact that a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders to the conclusion that selling 9 fare tokens for $10 is a better way to alleviate the burden on low income riders does not require assuming that the number of low-income riders will not decrease as a result of the fare increase.

Incorrect. Going from the fact that a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders to the conclusion that selling 9 fare tokens for $10 is a better way to alleviate the burden on low income riders does not require assuming anything about what other riders would do. All we are concerned with here is the effect on low-income riders.

Correct. Going from the fact that a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders to the conclusion that selling 9 fare tokens for $10 is a better way to alleviate the burden on low income riders require assuming that low income riders can actually afford to spend $10 at a time. If they can't, then selling discounted tokens in $10 packages won't affect the burden on low income riders.

Incorrect. Going from the fact that a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders to the conclusion that selling 9 fare tokens for $10 is a better way to alleviate the burden on low income riders does not require assuming that the fare increase is needed.

Incorrect. This answer is a trap, as one could get the impression that the degree to which means of transportation other than buses are available in Workney could be a factor in how much of a burden the fare increase is on lower income workers.

The thing is that we are looking not at all factors that would affect how much of a burden low-income riders experience, but only at whether offering $10 packages of tokens is better for them than offering $20 packages of tokens, and going from the fact that a $20.00 outlay would be prohibitive for low-income riders to the conclusion that selling 9 fare tokens for $10 is a better way to alleviate the burden on low income riders does not require assuming anything about whether there are other forms of public transportation in Workney.

The correct answer is C.

mrblack · Answer

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.

fieldsrd · Answer

C. The critics assume a $10.00 outlay would not be prohibitive otherwise no reason for them to propose a $10.00 outlay.

urhowig · Answer

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

mallya12 · Answer

Can someone explain option B(meaning of option B and why it is not an assumption)?

rish2708 · Answer

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

GMATNinja · Answer

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):

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!

Shef08 · Answer

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

Abhishek009 · Answer

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)

gaurav2m · Answer

i am also thinking the same.Therefore, C is only the best option left.

SairamRamo · Answer

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

mba757 · Answer

Conclusion : “Critics suggested alternatively that 9 fare tokens be sold for $10.00”  
 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.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

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