The highway from Ipswich to Rodway is currently overcrowded with traff

Question

The highway from Ipswich to Rodway is currently overcrowded with traffic, which deters potential customers from visiting Rodway's stores. The congestion has gotten so bad that many of the stores in Rodway are struggling to survive. Meanwhile, in Ipswich, the stores are thriving since they widened the road to Martin. Thus, to alleviate congestion and save Rodway's stores, the road between Ipswich and Rodway should be widened.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above?

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above?

(A) The construction necessary to widen the road will block an additional lane of traffic, temporarily adding to the congestion.

(B) The stores in Rodway are only profitable during the holiday shopping season.

(C) Martin is a thriving metropolis whose residents have several times the purchasing power of those of Ipswich.

(D) The owners of Rodway's stores are spending their revenue on advertising and marketing, rather than on purchasing new merchandise.

(E) Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened.

bschool83 · Accepted Answer

This question is a classic example of what I call... the 3C's rule "correlation causation caution!" i.e. when you see a correlation amounting to causation... there's something wrong.

Here Rodway's survival is correlated to Martin's by widening the roads from Ipswich. To weaken such conclusions, all you have to do is find a fault in the correlation.

What if Martin's stores were not profitable even after widening the road, then this is a faulty correlation.

Ans E does just that. E is the answer.

mayansd · Answer

Good analysis! However premise clearly states that "congestion is deterring potential customers from visiting Rodway's stores". As premises are considered true, we cannot weaken them. We can weaken the logical reasoning or the link between premises and conclusions or the conclusion itself. So, as per your analysis, only one weakening option remains: "or it will say that widening the roads won't save the stores, which are struggling ". Considering this, correct/incorrect choices become more evident.

My take on option C is:

Premise states that stores in Ipswich are thriving since the road between Ipswich and Martin was widened. (NOTE: no mention of Martin's stores in the premises)

Option C states that Martin's residents have much more purchasing power than Ipswich's residents. This implies that since the road between Ipswich and Martin was widened, Martin's residents were able to reach and purchase at Ipswich's stores, thus increasing Ipswich's stores' revenues. This in fact reinforces the premises, and hence actually strengthens the conclusion, that is based on a positive relation between widening of road (thus reducing congestion) and stores' revenues.

Having ruled out option C, E remains. 
Conclusion:  Widening Road => (alleviate congestion) => Increased Revenue of Rodway's stores

E states that widening of road didn't have a significant effect on Martin's stores, thus there is no reason to believe that widening of road will have a significant effect on Rodway's stores.
In short, option E is:  Widening of Road --Not Always--> Significant Increase in Revenue

In cases of cause and effect, If A causes B, i.e., A->B, then this relationship is considered strict and binding. In all cases A should cause B, and to the same extent. E clearly weakens this causal relationship as stated in the argument, hence should be the answer.

Option D is out of scope as it doesn't refer to the reasoning used in the argument and states extraneous factors (such as advertising, merchandise etc.) that may or may not affect stores' revenues.

fluke · Answer

Rodway's stores are catering to Ipswich's customers' needs.
Ipswich's stores are catering to Martin's customers' needs.

"C" says it may not be the widening of road that's making Ipswich's stores more profitable, it could actually be the affluence of their Martn's customers that's effecting Ipswich's stores profitability. So, assuming the easing of congestion as a factor for profitability of Martins stores and taking an analogous corrective action could be a bad strategy for Rodway.

Ans: "C"

BearBelly · Answer

Somehow, I am not at all convinced with the approach followed to say C is a better option.. Premise says: Meanwhile, in Ipswich, the stores are thriving since they widened the road to Martin Clearly, the profits have increased manifold only after the roads have been widened .. The purchasing power of residents from Martin in option C is stated as a fact, which is independent of the time frame i.e. residents from Martin have always had higher purchasing power and will continue to have as compared to those in Ipswich .. This means that widening of roads has actually helped in increasing profits .. Your thoughts ?? Further, I am not sure how can we infer the bold part above (Rodway's stores are catering to Ipswich's customers' needs).. I say, that Ipswich and Roadway both are just small towns and residents from Martin are the sole customers for the stores in both the towns.. Can we refute this statement from the stimulus ?? Overall, I am not sure which is the right option, however, on the test day I would mark option D and move on... P.S -> bschool83 dude ur questions r really like shot gun bullets .. dey claim victims at regular intervals ..

IndianExpress · Answer

The argument is : Widening the road to Ipswich will help in increasing the profits.
In my opinion, the correct answer would be the one which would say that the there is some other factor (and not the road) which is the reason for lower profits

I think only C and D make the cut. However, C is still in some way related to the road (as the residents of Martin have to come to Ipswich using the road).

So, D is the choice for me.

OA and OE please.

Jacksparrow1906 · Answer

Just a slight correction, the argument is : Widening the road to Rodway from Ipswich will save the Rodway stores, which are struggling to survive.

The weakening answer will include something that either says the congestion isn't the reason why the stores are struggling to survive or it will say that widening the roads won't save the stores, which are struggling (implies to me significant increase in revenue or profit)

Nevernevergiveup · Answer

The highway from Ipswich to Rodway is currently overcrowded with traffic, which deters potential customers from visiting Rodway's stores. 
The congestion has gotten so bad that many of the stores in Rodway are struggling to survive. 
Meanwhile, in Ipswich, the stores are thriving since they widened the road to Martin. 
Thus, to alleviate congestion and save Rodway's stores, the road between Ipswich and Rodway should be widened.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above?....i.e., Weaken

A. The construction necessary to widen the road will block an additional lane of traffic, temporarily adding to the congestion.
 The road widening here will block one more additional lane of traffic which will add to current issue. But it is temporary and can favor the argument.

B. The stores in Rodway are only profitable during the holiday shopping season....... when they are profitable is not the concern as we should be able to clear traffic to make it comfortable for shoppers. Out of scope.

C. Martin is a thriving metropolis whose residents have several times the purchasing power of those of Ipswich....... martin residents purchasing power have nothing to do with Rodway's as Martin's residents can go to Rodway to purchase products.

D. The owners of Rodway's stores are spending their revenue on advertising and marketing rather than on purchasing new merchandise.............. This is completely out of scope and does not affect the argument.

E. Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened............. this slight increase in profits helped the stores in Ipswich to become successful while only slight increase in profits were experienced by Marint's stores. So in a way the widening of road can result in prosperity for stores of either Ipswich or Rodway or anything else(the road can act as aid in transporting the material on that road). Thus it is not sure that Rodway's stores can be saved as outcome is not sure.

tarunk31 · Answer

Should be E.

Conclusion says that to alleviate congestetion and save Rodways stores, road from I to R should be widened. Evidence used is that businesses in Martin are thriving since the road from I to M was widened.

So assumption is that there is a causal relationship between widening of road from I to M and thriving businesses at M.

We need to weaken this causal connection.

E does that by suggesting that widening of road between I and R hardly affected the businesses at R.

Posted from my mobile device

Linhbiz · Answer

Here is my take on this.
Question Type: Weaken
Conclusion: Road (I->R) should be widened to SAVE stores in R --> need to prove that it's not the case (little help in saving R-store or not at all)

(1) The construction necessary to widen the road will block an additional lane of traffic, temporarily adding to the congestion.
  Irrelevant:  Conclusion talking about end result not the process

(2) The stores in Rodway are only profitable during the holiday shopping season.
  Irrelevant:  We should weaken the conclusion (widen the road) not the additional information, which doesn't affect whether you do anything with the road or not

(3) Martin is a thriving metropolis whose residents have several times the purchasing power of those of Ipswich.
  Irrelevant:  We're talking about widen the road between I & R, not the M's purchasing power

(4) The owners of Rodway's stores are spending their revenue on advertising and marketing, rather than on purchasing new merchandise.
  Irrelevant:  This could happen with or without the road affect --> neutral since lack of information

(5) Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened.
  Could be:  So similar situation happen from I->M while widen the road prove it does little help to increase the profit, so we can predict that same thing will happen with the widen road from I -> R: little affect on the store profit --> no help at all --> Weaken

So at the end, I think (E) is a suitable answer.

LogicGuru1 · Answer

The correct answer is E

This problem again reinstate the importance of reading the stimulus properly and getting the facts right

Lets break down the argument and see how clever the answer is

PREMISE 1) Roads From IPSWICH to MARTIN have been widened
PREMISE 2) Stores in IPSWICH are making profit. Many customers are visiting.

Ok. The widening of the roads should result in two way traffic .. Yes.. ??
Going from IPSWICH ----> MARTIN should be as convenient as travelling from MARTIN ---->IPSWICH since the width of the road will facilitate traffic in both direction

_____________________________________

I
P--------------->------------>---------M
S-----------<-------------<------------A
W--------------------------->---------R
I-----------<-------------<------------T
C----------------------------->--------I
H-----------<------------<------------N

________________________________________

PREMISE 3) THIS SHOULD WEAKEN THE CONCLUSION --> OPTION E -Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened.
CONCLUSION) To save Rodway's stores, the road between Ipswich and Rodway should be widened.

Now if widening the road between IPSWICH and MARTIN has caused MARTIN's customers to move to IPSWICH and only a little increase in MARTIN's store then IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT WIDENING THE ROAD BETWEEN RODWAY AND IPSWICH WILL CAUSE RODWAY'S CUSTOMERS TO TRAVEL TO IPSWICH. IN EVERY SCENARIO ITS IPSWICH THAT IS GAINING CUSTOMERS. CURRENTLY FROM MARTIN AND IF ROAD ARE BROADENED THEN IN FUTURE FROM RODWAY ALSO. MAY BE IPSWICH HAVE BETTER STORE.

Thus widening the road highway might actually complete destroy the Rodway stores by pulling customers away from Rodway to Ipswich.

Hence E is the correct weakener.

No other options does the trick.
Check by putting each option in place of PREMISE 3 and see how none of the other options weakens the conclusion.

The highway from Ipswich to Rodway is currently ovowded with traffic, which deters potential customers from visiting Rodway's stores. The congestion has gotten so bad that many of the stores in Rodway are struggling to survive. Meanwhile, in Ipswich, the stores are thriving since they widened the road to Martin. Thus, to alleviate congestion and save Rodway's stores, the road between Ipswich and Rodway should be widened.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above?

(1) The construction necessary to widen the road will block an additional lane of traffic, temporarily adding to the congestion.

(2) The stores in Rodway are only profitable during the holiday shopping season.

(3) Martin is a thriving metropolis whose residents have several times the purchasing power of those of Ipswich.

(4) The owners of Rodway's stores are spending their revenue on advertising and marketing, rather than on purchasing new merchandise.

(5) Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened.

aniketm.87@gmail.com · Answer

The highway from Ipswich to Rodway is currently overcrowded with traffic, which deters potential customers from visiting Rodway's stores. The congestion has gotten so bad that many of the stores in Rodway are struggling to survive. Meanwhile, in Ipswich, the stores are thriving since they widened the road to Martin. Thus, to alleviate congestion and save Rodway's stores, the road between Ipswich and Rodway should be widened.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above?

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument above?

(1) The construction necessary to widen the road will block an additional lane of traffic, temporarily adding to the congestion.

(2) The stores in Rodway are only profitable during the holiday shopping season.

(3) Martin is a thriving metropolis whose residents have several times the purchasing power of those of Ipswich.

(4) The owners of Rodway's stores are spending their revenue on advertising and marketing, rather than on purchasing new merchandise.

(5) Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened.

Tough to chose between C and E but I went with E

The argument does not give us any info about the purchasing power (PP) of R. The if true options give us some idea about the PP of I and M. Since there is no info about the PP of R and hence no means to compare the PP of all 3 together, I decided to eliminate it

Selection of E) as others have pointed out, IF E) is considered true then we can safely assume that stores in I are highly attractive and pull away business from neighbouring cities such as M.
Widening of the road between I and R may actually be more detrimental than helpful for R.

hope my reasoning is sound.

zw504 · Answer

I first went for C, since the author applied a similarity to deduce another similarity, and the optimal way to weaken the conclusion is to find a dissimilarity between the counterparts.

In this question, two counterparts should be M (destination) and R (destination).

After carefully reviewing the argument, i found that it was not the case:
stimulus: widen the road from I to M,   I   thrived (I - starting city, not M).
Conclusion to be weakened: widen the road from I to R,   R   would be saved.

C: Martin is a thriving metropolis whose residents have several times the purchasing power of those of Ipswich.
C compared M with I, rather than M with R, thus C is extraneous to the conclusion.

E: Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened.
The widened road did not bring considerable profits to M - just a slight increase. So E told us that the implementation that widening the road from I to M would NOT result in M's thriving.
Consequently, the same implementation will NOT result in saving R - just similar slight increase.

Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.

Tks,

Sneha333 · Answer

Choice E:Martin's stores have only experienced a slight increase in profits since the road from Ipswich was widened.
Still slight increase can save the stores which are struggling to survive.

Choice D is much better.

MPRS22 · Answer

Hi  AndrewN ,

Another question I would love to hear about from you. I marked D as my answer. E makes no sense. The conclusion is about saving the store so even a slight increase in profit might help. E is out. A is also out because the block is only temporary. B is out of scope. C seems appealing, because it seems to offer an alternative explanation. However, the fact that they have higher purchasing power implies nothing for the situation before and after the works.

What do you think?

Thanks

AndrewN · Answer

Honestly, I would call this a flawed question, one that does not have a clearcut and compelling answer. I could not even get past the sloppy writing in the passage. Who are  they , for example, in the third line?

Did the stores widen the road? Are these same stores going to widen the road between Ipswich and Rodway?

And what about that  which  clause in the opening line? Is it commenting on  traffic  specifically, or on the situation outlined in the preceding clause?

The writing is unclear, never mind the answer choices. Even something as seemingly irrelevant as (B) could provide an alternative explanation that would cast doubt on the argument—i.e. if the stores in Rodway are  only  profitable at a certain time, then widening the road/highway (which one is it? The first and last lines use different words to describe this thoroughfare) might have no effect on business in Rodway in any other part of the year.

I say this all the time in the forum, and I will repeat myself here:  stick to official questions to prepare for the Verbal section of the GMAT™ . If you have managed to exhaust the thousands of questions that fall into this category, and by some miracle you have also mastered all of them through review, you can seek the advice of a tutor or teacher—this forum is full of them—who can point you to high-quality third-party questions from the LSAT, Veritas Prep, or Manhattan Prep. Not all such questions are stand-ins for those you might see on the GMAT™, but a qualified professional should be able to tell the difference between what is more or less applicable and, well, offer appropriate guidance.

- Andrew

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 highway from Ipswich to Rodway is currently overcrowded with traff

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 highway from Ipswich to Rodway is currently overcrowded with traff

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