The citys public transportation system should be removed from the

Must be True Question: Inference Question

Process of Elimination :

A) Out of Scope, we have no mention about the experience of any firm
B) Yes this is true cuz private firms can raise fares and can do cost saving, thereby earning profits , which municipal govts. couldn't do due to political reasons .
C) Earlier the govts covered up the costs of losses but now such a need would be finished. It has no link with the private firms receiving the compensation.[ Cause & Effect relation - ing ] Therefore, its not true.
D) Out of scope, No mention of the public No such Inference about such a public trend possible.
E) No such inference possible

the essence of conclusion is that Private firms will vigorously pursue the profits .

Option B states just that , Nothing will stop private firms from pursuing profits

This is an Inference question. The correct answer choice must be 100% true.

(A) the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry - Irrelevant.

(B) political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs - The last sentence of the argument says that 'thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds'. So, this answer choice can be inferred.

(C) private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs - Not stated in argument.

(D) the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm - May or may not be true.

(E) the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs - Not stated in argument.

Answer B.

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.

Type - inference

(A) the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry - Incorrect - This may be true in real life, but we can't say this with certainity

(B) political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs - Correct - Municipal government failed to profitably operate city’s public transportation because of political considerations, but the argument assumes that private firms would be able to pursue profits. So, we can infer that political consideration would no longer be a factor for private firms.

(C) private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs - Out of scope

(D) the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm - Out of scope - no discussion on public approval of cost-cutting

(E) the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs - Irrelvant

Answer B
_________________

Is the highlighted word "politically" in the passage, is a reason to pick B ? because, I don't see anywhere mentioned, that the political considerations are stalling the profits or operating costs­

at first , I think choice b make too much inference , then I found the word POLITICALLY in the stimulus

HI VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
could you please explain this question?

Hi

I feel this is more of a "Find the Assumption" question rather than "Complete the Argument". The first sentence given can function as a clear conclusion: The city’s public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government.

The following can act as premises:

1) The municipal government finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service.
2) If public transportation were handled by a private firm:
i) profits would be vigorously pursued.
ii) there would be no necessity for covering operating costs with government funds.

Clearly, one very possible assumption here is that private firms would not be hamstrung by the same considerations as the municipal government.

(A) the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry The experience, basis the given premises, does not impact the firms' ability to pursue profits. Eliminate.

(B) political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs Correct. Consistent with our thinking above.

(C) private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs Nothing in the passage supports this - in fact, the opposite is stated. Eliminate.

(D) the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm Nothing in the passage supports this. Eliminate.

(E) the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs This is irrelevant because we are considering the scenario of private firms operating the transportation, not the municipal government. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Hi GMATNinja,
Please help with this question.

I felt this was more like finding conclusion though. Actually, I cannot quite grasp the difference between conclusion vs inference. I would appreciate if someone can thoroughly distinguish what to look for conclusion problems vs inference problems.

Conclsuion: something is derived from premises. Something can not be argued.
Example: If A leads to B and B leads to C.
A can lead to C through B.( you can not argue on this)
Inference: Something that can not be dervied directly but tends to indicate some meaning.
A may lead to C ( it indicates A can lead to C but we can not 100% guarantee , maybe it can lead to C unless B is in between, or there could be other possibiliites)
may : makes it open to interpret

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.
_________________