Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The city's public transportation system should be removed [#permalink]
30 May 2006, 10:47
100% (01:07) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 9 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
The city's public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government, which finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service. If public transportation were handled by a private firm, profits would be vigorously pursued, thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds.
The statements above best support the conclusion that
A the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry
B political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs
C private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs
D the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm
E the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs
B (I think this is an assumption, not conclusion, but not sure)
C (the whole argument is about transferring the system to private, so why should government be involved?) NO
D (if the public doesnâ€™t approve the actions of the firmâ€¦ say they wouldnâ€™t support the rise in fare, then firms are not likely to get profits and cover its operating costs, so argument falls apart using negation)
E (again, nothing about private firms and cutting the costs) NO
Therefore, I am b/w B and D, but leaning towards D since the using assumption-negation technique the argument falls apartâ€¦
The conclusion supports the facts mentioned in the statements the goverments cover up the inefficiency by diverting more funds whereas private funds whose utmost importance is profit wil try to maximise revenues to cover the costs.
Cannot be C because C is an inference not a conclusion.
how can you infer that government is going to cover operating costs if it's agenda was to transfer such burden on private firms? I think C is just moving in a completely opposite direction from the argument and not even hinting about conclusion/inference!
hey .. b it is ... the political bindings create a barrier and private firms are very much away from the range thus ..political considerations would not bother them much and they wud go with the required hike in fares etc ..