Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jun 1511:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Struggling to find the right strategies to score a 99 %ile on GMAT Focus? Riya (GMAT 715) boosted her score by 100-points in just 15 days! Discover how the right mentorship, tailored strategies, and an unwavering mindset can transform your GMAT prep.
Jun 1210:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Your formula for GMAT success! Seasoned instructors + realistic practice = total confidence for test day. Use code SCORE20. Ends 6/16.
Jun 1203:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.
Jun 1608:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!- Jun 21
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
22 Apr 2020, 00:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
52% (02:33) correct
48%
(02:46)
wrong
based on 5132
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Urban rail systems have been proposed to alleviate traffic congestion, but results in many cities have been cited as evidence that this approach to traffic management is ineffective. For example, a U.S. city that opened three urban rail branches experienced a net decline of 3,100 urban rail commuters during a period when employment increased by 96,000. Officials who favor urban rail systems as a solution to traffic congestion have attempted to counter this argument by noting that commuting trips in that city represent just 20 percent of urban travel.
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect
(B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question
(C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion
(D) fails to show that the decline in the number of urban rail commuters in one U.S. city is typical of U.S. cities generally
(E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect
(B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question
(C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion
(D) fails to show that the decline in the number of urban rail commuters in one U.S. city is typical of U.S. cities generally
(E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters
ID: 500319
CR11080.02
CR11080.02
03 Aug 2020, 23:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
generis
Urban rail systems have been proposed to alleviate traffic congestion, but results in many cities have been cited as evidence that this approach to traffic management is ineffective. For example, a U.S. city that opened three urban rail branches experienced a net decline of 3,100 urban rail commuters during a period when employment increased by 96,000. Officials who favor urban rail systems as a solution to traffic congestion have attempted to counter this argument by noting that commuting trips in that city represent just 20 percent of urban travel.
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
A) presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect
B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question
C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion
D) fails to show that the decline in the number of urban rail commuters in one U.S. city is typical of U.S. cities generally
E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters
CR11080.02
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
A) presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect
B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question
C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion
D) fails to show that the decline in the number of urban rail commuters in one U.S. city is typical of U.S. cities generally
E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters
CR11080.02
Problem: Traffic congestion (too may cars on the roads)
Debate between supporters and opposers of Urban Rail:
Supporters of Urban Rail: Urban Rail reduces congestion.
Opposers of Urban Rain: Not effective. In a city, when employment increased by 96,000, there was a decline of 3100 commuters (people who travel to and fro office every day). So urban rail did not reduce congestion.
Supporters of Urban Rail: Commuter trips represent just 20% of travel in that city. (The commuter trips are not the main source of congestion. Perhaps other 80% cause congestion and they have been using the urban rail and hence reducing congestion. So reduction in commuter trips doesn't say much about whether rails are effective. So if one small fraction isn't using the urban rails much, it doesn't matter. Perhaps others are using and hence traffic is lower)
What will criticise this response of supporters?
A) presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect
The statistics needn't be incorrect.
B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question
It does talk about that city.
C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion
Correct. The supporters are supporting - "Urban rail reduces congestion."
Now, what if most of the congestion is caused by commuters even though commuter travel is just 20% of travel? What if the morning and evening office times are the times of congestion because the roads cannot handle so much commuter traffic. The other travel could be staggered around the day causing no congestion. Then if commuters are not using urban rail, it doesn't help in reducing congestion.
Commuters may not be a big part of the total travellers but they could be the whole and sole cause of the congestion problem.
D) fails to show that the decline in the number of urban rail commuters in one U.S. city is typical of U.S. cities generally
Not correct. The opposers cited the example of one city and the supporters are presenting evidence in the case of that city itself.
E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters
Not correct. They are providing an explanation for why the commuters data given by opposers is not relevant. The opposers talked about commuters.
Answer (C)
23 Apr 2020, 04:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Urban rail systems have been proposed to alleviate traffic congestion, but results in many cities have been cited as evidence that this approach to traffic management is ineffective. For example, a U.S. city that opened three urban rail branches experienced a net decline of 3,100 urban rail commuters during a period when employment increased by 96,000. Officials who favor urban rail systems as a solution to traffic congestion have attempted to counter this argument by noting that commuting trips in that city represent just 20 percent of urban travel.
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
URS is proposed to ease traffic congestion but there are cities which prove otherwise. Further a data is presented that a city with three branches of UR had decline in number of commuters whereas, on the other hand, employment had increased.
To this officials favoring URS as a solution counter by saying that commuting trips by people is just 20% of urban travel.
Since nothing else is given in the passage we can say that officials thought that their reasoning is enough to counter the result presented earlier or in other words they assumed that URS commuting is just 20% of the total travel and that possibly is not enough to ease the congestion caused by other 80% travel. So, in a way, officials safeguard their side of argument.
Now, let's look into the options:
A) presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect - WRONG. A possible candidate only if other options are eliminated using POE. For it to be picked up as the right answer a bridging assumption is required which is wrong to make and again leads to POE method.
B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question - WRONG. Goes against the argument. Its the opposite - a city's data is given as an example to prove a general trend of many cities.
C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion - CORRECT. What if people use private vehicles to reach the URS either home to URS or office to URS and vice-a-versa. In that case it would have significantly increased the percentage.
D) fails to show that the decline in the number of urban rail commuters in one U.S. city is typical of U.S. cities generally - WRONG. Irrelevant actually. Its not important.
E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters - WRONG. Again it goes off-track. Even if officials had provided it would not have had any role in proving the point that officials were defending URS.
IMO Answer C.
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
URS is proposed to ease traffic congestion but there are cities which prove otherwise. Further a data is presented that a city with three branches of UR had decline in number of commuters whereas, on the other hand, employment had increased.
To this officials favoring URS as a solution counter by saying that commuting trips by people is just 20% of urban travel.
Since nothing else is given in the passage we can say that officials thought that their reasoning is enough to counter the result presented earlier or in other words they assumed that URS commuting is just 20% of the total travel and that possibly is not enough to ease the congestion caused by other 80% travel. So, in a way, officials safeguard their side of argument.
Now, let's look into the options:
A) presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect - WRONG. A possible candidate only if other options are eliminated using POE. For it to be picked up as the right answer a bridging assumption is required which is wrong to make and again leads to POE method.
B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question - WRONG. Goes against the argument. Its the opposite - a city's data is given as an example to prove a general trend of many cities.
C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion - CORRECT. What if people use private vehicles to reach the URS either home to URS or office to URS and vice-a-versa. In that case it would have significantly increased the percentage.
D) fails to show that the decline in the number of urban rail commuters in one U.S. city is typical of U.S. cities generally - WRONG. Irrelevant actually. Its not important.
E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters - WRONG. Again it goes off-track. Even if officials had provided it would not have had any role in proving the point that officials were defending URS.
IMO Answer C.
