Train service suffers when a railroad combines commuter and freight se

IMO A. If Commuter and freight service had been common then the customers will be served well. Can anyone explain why the OA is C?

you can bring new info when dealing with assumptions slick

Can E be consider a better choice than others as if we negate E than, railroad commuters will want freight service and thus we cannot focus extensively on one of the markets?
Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong.

I narrowed it to C and E but picked E.

Can someone explain why E is incorrect?

If we negate E..... Railroad commuters mostly want freight service as well.

The conclusion..."Railroads must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets"......falls apart..

explanations are welcome.

Everyone is talking about Negation. let me try as well -
Negation A : (A) Commuter and freight service have EVERYTHING in common with each other. still need to explain the "success"

Now negate C. Negation (C) Unless a railroad DOES NOT serves its customers well, it will not be a successful business. >> Sounds like free lunch. yeah

Let me try to simplify the choice C.

Unless a railroad serves its customers well, it will not be a successful business.---> To be a successful business, railroad needs to serve its customers well. By negating this statement we get, to be a successful business, railroad DOES NOT need to serve its customers well. Is it? So, conclusion falls apart.

Prem :
When a train service does both commuter and freight service, it serves neither customer particularly well.

Conc:
If a train service wants to be successful, it must concentrate exclusively on one.

I hope that when you reach the conclusion you would notice the "new guy" ... i.e., successful business?

The correct answer is going to have to define what's required of a "successful business", because that's what the conclusion is claiming and the author never gave us any rules/definitions of "successful business".

So just a quick scan eliminates (A) and (E), since they don't address the "new guy".

Why does the author think the current way ISN'T a successful business --- the only thing that sounds like a negative about the current way is that the railroad doesn't serve either customer base particularly well.

So that's the gap we need to connect: "not serving your customers well" and "not being a successful business".

(A) "little in common" is too extreme ... they could be very similar but still stretch a business too thin to treat customers well

(B) "first priority" is too extreme ... the first priority could be "don't kill any passengers" but this argument would still make sense.

(D) Not only does this arbitrarily pick commuter rather than freight, it also shifts from saying "picking one of the two" is NECESSARY to success to "picking one of the two" is SUFFICIENT for success.

(E) "rarely" is too extreme ... it wouldn't matter if commuters frequently wanted freight service also, it could still be true that a railroad does a poor job of both and thereby frustrates the same customer twice.

Hi Mahboob,
In option c- By customers in the passage we mean commuters only. So, even if the rail road services do not serve its customers well, but if they provide better freight services then, the railroad services can be successful. So, option C is not necessarily true. Let me know where my understanding lacks.

Hi sunny91,

I am not sure whether you addressed me or anyone else, namely Mahboob.

However, the passage mentions 'By dividing its attention between its freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well.'

By this line we can deduce that railroad has both freight customers and commuter customers. The passage does not imply by referring customers to ONLY commuter. If we take that passage refers only to community customers NOT freight customers than it becomes as following:

1. By dividing its attention between its freight, a railroad serves neither particularly well.' (Can 'freight' be a subject to be served by the railroad? No. It does not make any sense.)
AND
2. By dividing its attention between its commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well.'

Unless a railroad serves its customers well, it will not be a successful business.---> To be a successful business, railroad needs to serve its customers well. By negating this statement we get, to be a successful business, railroad DOES NOT need to serve its customers well. Is it? So, conclusion falls apart.[/quote]
Hi Mahboob,
In option c- By customers in the passage we mean commuters only. So, even if the rail road services do not serve its customers well, but if they provide better freight services then, the railroad services can be successful. So, option C is not necessarily true. Let me know where my understanding lacks.[/quote]

Hi sunny91,

I am not sure whether you addressed me or anyone else, namely Mahboob.

However, the passage mentions 'By dividing its attention between its freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well.'

By this line we can deduce that railroad has both freight customers and commuter customers. The passage does not imply by referring customers to ONLY commuter. If we take that passage refers only to community customers NOT freight customers than it becomes as following:

1. By dividing its attention between its freight, a railroad serves neither particularly well.' (Can 'freight' be a subject to be served by the railroad? No. It does not make any sense.)
AND
2. By dividing its attention between its commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well.'[/quote]

Thanks Mahmud6 for the explanation. I addressed you and apologized for the inconvenience in the name. Actually Mahboob is my Boss's name

Train service suffers when a railroad combines commuter and freight service. By dividing its attention between its freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well. Therefore, if a railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.

For the argument to be logically correct, it must make which one of the following assumptions?

(A) Commuter and freight service have little in common with each other. -Okay? Still it's not related to the conclusion
(B) The first priority of a railroad is to be a successful business. -Exaggerated statement
(C) Unless a railroad serves its customers well, it will not be a successful business. -Correct. Bridges the gap in the argument
(D) If a railroad concentrates on commuter service, it will be a successful business. -Argument is about concentrating on anyone of the given 2 choices
(E) Railroad commuters rarely want freight service as well. -Out of scope

I like your avatar, haha....

GMATNinja generis VeritasKarishma nightblade354

Please validate my argument understanding and PoE


Which one of answer choices must be true for the conclusion to be valid?



Conclusion: Train service must concentrate exclusively on one of two markets: Market A: commuter service
Market B: freight service

Necessary condition: usually the conclusion: Train service must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.
Sufficient condition: a railroad is going to be a successful business

Why:
Premise: If train service divides its attention on both, it does well in neither of them.

Approach: For an assumption, try to attack the conclusion ie necessary condition.
If a suff condition exists without necessary condition, my conclusion breaks apart


Whether commuter and freight services have more aspects in common or fewer aspects in common,
(A) does not help to invalid my claim. Out of scope -1


Priority?? Another huge leap? Out of scope -2


Negate this:
Even if a railroad serves its customers well, it will not be a successful business

Now my necessary condition is under danger since even if railroad is serving its customers well,
as per this choice: it will not be a successful business.
Hence, the conclusion is invalid


Nope, arguments says to concentrate on ANY ONE, see highlighted text.
Railroad can concentrate on EITHER commuter or freight services and become a successful business.
Since the conclusion is not broken on negation, this option is rejected.

Negated version:
If a railroad concentrates on commuter service, it will NOT be a successful business.


What commuters want is totally out of scope.

This is a typical assumption question.

Premises:
Train service suffers when a railroad combines commuter and freight service.
By serving both, it serves neither particularly well.

Conclusion: if a railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.

Note the gap even before going to the options: The premises say that the railroad is not able to serve its customers well. The conclusion concludes about "successful business". Where did successful business come from?

The assumption should bridge this gap.

(A) Commuter and freight service have little in common with each other.
Doesn't matter how much they have in common. Premises say that focussing on both doesn't work and that should be taken as true.

(B) The first priority of a railroad is to be a successful business.
Irrelevant. Whether the railroad wants to be successful or not doesn't matter. The point is that IF it wants to be successful, it should focus on one only.

(C) Unless a railroad serves its customers well, it will not be a successful business.
This is correct. It links serving customers well to being successful - exactly what we wanted.

(D) If a railroad concentrates on commuter service, it will be a successful business.
The railroad needs to serve its customers well to be successful. Which customers it serves (commuters/freight) is irrelevant.

(E) Railroad commuters rarely want freight service as well.
How much is the overlap is irrelevant. The argument talks about focussing on one kind of business.

Answer (C)

Seems here that customers include both fright and commuters.

Got this tough question wrong. Here's my error analysis and key takeaways:

- If conclusion introduces a new term that isn't mentioned in the premise, then assumption should address/define that new term!
- Verify each word.

Train service suffers when a railroad combines commuter and freight service. By dividing its attention between its freight and commuter customers, a railroad serves neither particularly well. Therefore, if a railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets.

For the argument to be logically correct, it must make which one of the following assumptions?

(A) Commuter and freight service have little in common with each other. - Out of scope
(B) The first priority of a railroad is to be a successful business. - This is the one I initially chose. But now realize it's, out of scope and extreme wording. We have no idea about priorities
(C) Unless a railroad serves its customers well, it will not be a successful business. - Correct
(D) If a railroad concentrates on commuter service, it will be a successful business. - Out of scope: isolates commuters
(E) Railroad commuters rarely want freight service as well. - Out of scope