The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles! (A classic 1980s comedy. I think it was probably funny, but I've killed a lot of brain cells since the 80s, and can't really remember...)

Here the author concludes that "a sufficient market for the {proposed high-speed} train will not exist." Why not?

• The train would be a fixed linear system (with fixed routes).
• Consumers prefer free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes.
• A plane would be just as fast as the proposed train, could fly anywhere (free-wheel), and would be cheaper.

So why build a high-speed train line when there is a cheaper, faster, and supposedly more flexible (i.e. free-wheel) option? Now that we understand the structure of the author's argument, we need to find something that weakens that argument:


You might be tempted to choose (A) if you think, "Oh, maybe trains are safer because they leave less room for human error?". But we need something that weakens the author's specific argument, which states that a sufficient market for the train will not exist. The author's argument has nothing to do with safety or drivers/pilots vs mechanical guidance. Choice (A) has nothing to do with the market for a high-speed train or with free-wheel vs fixed route systems. Thus, choice (A) does not impact the author's argument and should be eliminated.


Although cars and buses are cited as EXAMPLES of free-wheel systems, the author's argument focuses on planes versus high-speed trains (i.e. why build a train when planes are cheaper, faster, and more flexible)? Furthermore, choice (B) does not address the free-wheel versus fixed route argument made by the author. Even if the trains are much faster, customers might prefer free-wheel systems that allow them to travel anywhere and not just along fixed routes. Eliminate (B).


The passage states that consumers choose free-wheel systems that do not have fixed routes. If a free-wheel system is one that does not have fixed routes and planes are free to fly anywhere, then planes seem to represent a free-wheel system.

However, even though aircraft by themselves might be free-wheel, planes travel along fixed routes. Although planes can theoretically fly anywhere, in reality their routes are limited to airports at fixed locations. If we include the fact that consumers need to use these airports in order to actually travel by plane, the resulting system is not free-wheel.

Since the author's argument is that planes are cheaper, faster, and more flexible (i.e. free-wheel), choice (C) directly weakens that argument. Hang on to this one.


Choice (D) implies that new stations would have to be built in order to use the new high-speed trains. This point would likely be used to argue AGAINST building the high-speed trains. This point likely strengthens the author's argument. Regardless, choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.


As with choice (D), this seems to support the view that the train line should not be built. Regardless, choice (E) says nothing about the author's argument, which is based on the market for high-speed trains. Eliminate (E).

Choice (C) is the best answer.