Last visit was: 15 Jun 2025, 07:18 It is currently 15 Jun 2025, 07:18
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
705-805 Level|   Logical Flaw|               
User avatar
generis
User avatar
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Last visit: 18 Jun 2022
Posts: 5,298
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 9,464
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,298
Kudos: 36,863
 [266]
17
Kudos
Add Kudos
249
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 Jun 2025
Posts: 16,046
Own Kudos:
73,678
 [40]
Given Kudos: 472
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,046
Kudos: 73,678
 [40]
27
Kudos
Add Kudos
13
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
unraveled
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,727
Own Kudos:
2,142
 [16]
Given Kudos: 764
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,727
Kudos: 2,142
 [16]
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
itspC
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Last visit: 13 Jun 2025
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
821
 [8]
Given Kudos: 108
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41 (Online)
Products:
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41 (Online)
Posts: 68
Kudos: 821
 [8]
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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

TARGET: Find flaw in the reasoning of officials

A)why should he prove stats wrong? Irrelevant

B)So ? an example need not be the model in discussion and still be valid

C)He said C trips=only 20% of urban trips . But 20% of urban trips may be > 20% of congestion.He did miss this point ,lets keep this.

D)Why should he show the whole US as an example ? even a single city serves as a good example.

E) Ok, let's say if he mentioned URS-psngrs stats...then...? still can't fix the flaw with this., i.e the decline of commuters(3100) with comparatively huge increase in employment(96000)

Therefore OA:C


Don't fall for common GMAT trap relevance of words: option E is a trap . it has few words from info doesn't mean its answer. Verify clearly to declare a contender

Thanks. :thumbsup:
User avatar
Harsh2111s
Joined: 08 May 2019
Last visit: 10 Feb 2021
Posts: 317
Own Kudos:
257
 [2]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Products:
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There is extra effort required in such questions where question stem uses complex language.
Let's breakdown the question first-
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it-
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective- What is the response of officials ?
So as per officials"commuting trips in that city represent just 20 percent of urban travel.", hence to claim urban rail systems are ineffective is wrong.

Next part of question- is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
Thus we have to show that official reasoning is flawed and urban rail systems are actually ineffective.

Let's look at options:
Quote:
a.presents no evidence to show that the statistics are incorrect.
Evidence here is unrelated.It is a fact that city represent just 20% of urban travel and hence evidence not required.
This option doesn't solve our purpose.
Quote:
B) relies solely on general data about U.S. cities rather than data about the city in question
Official never mentioned any data from other US cities.This option is irrelevant.
Quote:
C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion.
Interesting option as it forced us to think.
As per this option, there are chances that most congestion is caused by those 20% commuters only. Maybe those 20% commuters caused 100% congestion.
Thus official quoting that city represents only 20% of urban travel is in big trouble here :)
Keep it till we find something better.
Quote:
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
typical means-representative as a symbol; symbolic.
Now why official want to represent a city,where there is decline in urban rail commuters,as a symbol ?
Quote:
E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters
Official talks only about commuters and we don't know about congestion contribution of other passengers.
Hence this option is wrong.
Option C is correct.
User avatar
shanks2020
Joined: 02 Dec 2018
Last visit: 21 Mar 2024
Posts: 239
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Posts: 239
Kudos: 36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
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

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)

Hi VeritasKarishma

In option E, the remaining 80% of the travel can cause congestion, which the proponent has not talked about. Hence, even if commuters form only 20%, the remaining 80% can cause congestion, and hence bringing them to rail would release congestion. Or he tries to justify the usefulness by commenting only on 20% of the total travel, which is wrong. Why isn't option E correct then?
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 Jun 2025
Posts: 16,046
Own Kudos:
73,678
 [2]
Given Kudos: 472
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,046
Kudos: 73,678
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
shanks2020
VeritasKarishma
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

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)

Hi VeritasKarishma

In option E, the remaining 80% of the travel can cause congestion, which the proponent has not talked about. Hence, even if commuters form only 20%, the remaining 80% can cause congestion, and hence bringing them to rail would release congestion. Or he tries to justify the usefulness by commenting only on 20% of the total travel, which is wrong. Why isn't option E correct then?

We have to criticise the response given by supporters. Supporters have responded to what opposers had said.
The criticism of the response will be that the response may not give an accurate picture. The criticism will not be that the supporters should have given more points in support. We have to say why what they said is not an accurate representation.

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. So urban rail did not reduce congestion.

Supporters of Urban Rail: Commuter trips represent just 20% of travel in that city.

We have to say why this figure of 20% may not represent the actual picture.

E) provides no statistics on the use of urban rail systems by passengers other than commuters

This says that they are not telling us more about the 80% non commuters and about who is using the rails. We don't have to worry about that. We cannot decide how they choose to support rails. We have to criticise what they are actually saying.

Opposers said that fewer commuters are using rails. So rails are not helpful. Supporters said that commuters are just 20% of travellers. But, what if these 20% are responsible for all the congestion? Then supporters logic of "just 20%" is not good enough. This is what (C) says.

Hence answer is (C)
User avatar
BhaveshGMAT
Joined: 29 Sep 2018
Last visit: 11 Jul 2022
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
61
 [1]
Given Kudos: 348
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38 (Online)
GPA: 3.5
Products:
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38 (Online)
Posts: 73
Kudos: 61
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sharing an excerpt from OG explanation-

"...if noncommuters typically use the rail system, commuting might even constitute most of the car traffic in the city. So a net movement of commuters from rail travel to car travel could be detrimental to the goal of alleviating traffic congestion even if a minority of urban travel is in the form of commuting."

I am not able to understand the reasoning presented above, especially the bolded portions. However, I do get that how 20% commuters can disproportionately contribute to traffic congestion.

VeritasKarishma, May I request your guidance here?
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 Jun 2025
Posts: 16,046
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 472
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,046
Kudos: 73,678
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
BhaveshGMAT
sharing an excerpt from OG explanation-

"...if noncommuters typically use the rail system, commuting might even constitute most of the car traffic in the city. So a net movement of commuters from rail travel to car travel could be detrimental to the goal of alleviating traffic congestion even if a minority of urban travel is in the form of commuting."

I am not able to understand the reasoning presented above, especially the bolded portions. However, I do get that how 20% commuters can disproportionately contribute to traffic congestion.

VeritasKarishma, May I request your guidance here?

BhaveshGMAT -
Take OG explanations with a grain of salt. Rely on explanations on forums such as this one.
Without context of the two lines you have given above, I am unable to make out what this is referring to.
User avatar
Elite097
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 13 Jun 2025
Posts: 730
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 345
Location: India
GPA: 3.64
Posts: 730
Kudos: 480
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB here is the context can you pls explain the reasoning used? Not clear on the entire reasoning and especially the bold parts. Also not very clear on the reasoning on the thread as I still do not get how the supporter is justifying himself by stating that 20% of the urban travel is by commuter trip. Even if he thinks so, what is he presuming really to even think it matters because in any case there is still a NET DECREASE in ppl traveling by rail.
Commuters =C, Non commuters = NC;
C+NC= Total
Total old > Total new and since there is overall a net decrease in people traveling by rail thus NC has either decreased or increased by an amount less than the decrease in C old such that Total old < Total new. We have no reason to think they is an overall increse as stated in the explanation below nor do we have a reason to assume that NC has increased as you have stated in your explantion. Please clarify.

avigutman ThatDudeKnows KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep

Reasoning Which answer choice most undermines the officials’ response to the claim that
urban rail would be ineffective in relieving urban traffic congestion?
Theoretically, urban rail service should help reduce traffic congestion by
encouraging people to travel by train instead of by car. However, there is
purported evidence that this approach is ineffective: In at least one city, an
increase in the availability of rail service correlated with a decrease in the
number of commuters traveling by rail, even though the total number of
commuters apparently increased. Some officials object that in that city,
commuters account for only 20 percent of urban travel. The officials’ point is
presumably that even if there was a net decline in commuters using the rail
system, there may have been an overall increase in the number of people who
used rail instead of driving.
However, the stated goal of building more rail
systems is to reduce traffic congestion, not just to reduce the overall amount of
urban car traffic. Even if commuting makes up only 20 percent of urban travel
in the city in question, it might contribute disproportionately to traffic
congestion, and if noncommuters typically use the rail system, commuting
might even constitute most of the car traffic in the city. So a net movement of
commuters from rail travel to car travel could be detrimental to the goal of
alleviating traffic congestion even if a minority of urban travel is in the form of
commuting.




KarishmaB
BhaveshGMAT
sharing an excerpt from OG explanation-

"...if noncommuters typically use the rail system, commuting might even constitute most of the car traffic in the city. So a net movement of commuters from rail travel to car travel could be detrimental to the goal of alleviating traffic congestion even if a minority of urban travel is in the form of commuting."

I am not able to understand the reasoning presented above, especially the bolded portions. However, I do get that how 20% commuters can disproportionately contribute to traffic congestion.

VeritasKarishma, May I request your guidance here?

BhaveshGMAT -
Take OG explanations with a grain of salt. Rely on explanations on forums such as this one.
Without context of the two lines you have given above, I am unable to make out what this is referring to.
User avatar
avigutman
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 09 Jun 2025
Posts: 1,295
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,295
Kudos: 1,895
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
Not very clear on the reasoning on the thread as I still do not get how the supporter is justifying himself by stating that 20% of the urban travel is by commuter trip. Even if he thinks so, what is he presuming really to even think it matters because in any case there is still a NET DECREASE in ppl traveling by rail.
Commuters =C, Non commuters = NC;
C+NC= Total
Total old > Total new and since there is overall a net decrease in people traveling by rail thus NC has either decreased or increased by an amount less than the decrease in C old such that Total old < Total new. We have no reason to think they is an overall increse as stated in the explanation below nor do we have a reason to assume that NC has increased as you have stated in your explantion. Please clarify.
The net decrease is NOT in ppl traveling by rail, Elite097.
Quote:
a net decline of 3,100 urban rail commuters
The problem with the reasoning of the officials who favor urban rail systems as a solution to traffic congestion is that they're conflating traffic congestion and urban travel. It's possible that 20% of urban travel causes 80% of traffic congestion - that's a vulnerability of the official's argument.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 13 Jun 2025
Posts: 16,046
Own Kudos:
73,678
 [1]
Given Kudos: 472
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,046
Kudos: 73,678
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
KarishmaB here is the context can you pls explain the reasoning used? Not clear on the entire reasoning and especially the bold parts. Also not very clear on the reasoning on the thread as I still do not get how the supporter is justifying himself by stating that 20% of the urban travel is by commuter trip. Even if he thinks so, what is he presuming really to even think it matters because in any case there is still a NET DECREASE in ppl traveling by rail.
Commuters =C, Non commuters = NC;
C+NC= Total
Total old > Total new and since there is overall a net decrease in people traveling by rail thus NC has either decreased or increased by an amount less than the decrease in C old such that Total old < Total new. We have no reason to think they is an overall increse as stated in the explanation below nor do we have a reason to assume that NC has increased as you have stated in your explantion. Please clarify.

avigutman ThatDudeKnows KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep

Reasoning Which answer choice most undermines the officials’ response to the claim that
urban rail would be ineffective in relieving urban traffic congestion?
Theoretically, urban rail service should help reduce traffic congestion by
encouraging people to travel by train instead of by car. However, there is
purported evidence that this approach is ineffective: In at least one city, an
increase in the availability of rail service correlated with a decrease in the
number of commuters traveling by rail, even though the total number of
commuters apparently increased. Some officials object that in that city,
commuters account for only 20 percent of urban travel. The officials’ point is
presumably that even if there was a net decline in commuters using the rail
system, there may have been an overall increase in the number of people who
used rail instead of driving.
However, the stated goal of building more rail
systems is to reduce traffic congestion, not just to reduce the overall amount of
urban car traffic. Even if commuting makes up only 20 percent of urban travel
in the city in question, it might contribute disproportionately to traffic
congestion, and if noncommuters typically use the rail system, commuting
might even constitute most of the car traffic in the city. So a net movement of
commuters from rail travel to car travel could be detrimental to the goal of
alleviating traffic congestion even if a minority of urban travel is in the form of
commuting.




KarishmaB
BhaveshGMAT
sharing an excerpt from OG explanation-

"...if noncommuters typically use the rail system, commuting might even constitute most of the car traffic in the city. So a net movement of commuters from rail travel to car travel could be detrimental to the goal of alleviating traffic congestion even if a minority of urban travel is in the form of commuting."

I am not able to understand the reasoning presented above, especially the bolded portions. However, I do get that how 20% commuters can disproportionately contribute to traffic congestion.

VeritasKarishma, May I request your guidance here?

BhaveshGMAT -
Take OG explanations with a grain of salt. Rely on explanations on forums such as this one.
Without context of the two lines you have given above, I am unable to make out what this is referring to.

Total old is NOT greater than total new.
There is NOT a net decrease in people using the rails. There is decrease of 3100 in the number of "commuters." These are the people who travel to work (employment purposes) every morning and evening. There are other travellers (people travelling to buy home supplies, visiting friends, going to restaurants etc). We don't know whether the total number of people using the rails has increased or decreased.

The aim of the plan is to reduce "congestion," not "traffic."
Who causes congestion? What if the commuters are responsible for congestion? Say every morning between 8 to 10 AM and evening 5 to 7 pm there is huge congestion on city roads because of commuters (people going to and coming from office). At all other times, there is traffic but no congestion - traffic is free flowing (of other travellers). So commuters may represent only 20% of all day traffic but may be responsible for all the congestion (in the morning and the evening).
When supporters claim that only commuter numbers are meaningless because commuters are only 20% of all traffic, what they ignore is that commuter numbers may be the ones mostly responsible for congestion. The aim is not to reduce number of vehicles on the road; the aim is to reduce congestion i.e. reduce number of vehicles when many vehicles are together on the road.

So consider a scenario before rails -
Rush hour in morning and evening (congestion) while the whole day traffic is heavy but flows smoothly (no congestion).

With rails -
Rush hour in morning and evening (congestion - commuters are not using rails) while the whole day traffic is light because people are using rails.

Were we able to reduce congestion with rails? No.
User avatar
tinbq
Joined: 04 Nov 2016
Last visit: 26 May 2024
Posts: 121
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 599
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.12
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 121
Kudos: 24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi experts,

Does the current GMAT still employ questions similar to this one?? They are really hard to grab the flow of reasoning, not to mention the tricky in word choices and terms.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 15 June 2025
Posts: 7,325
Own Kudos:
68,232
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,943
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,325
Kudos: 68,232
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tinbq
Hi experts,

Does the current GMAT still employ questions similar to this one?? They are really hard to grab the flow of reasoning, not to mention the tricky in word choices and terms.
This question showed up in the most recent edition of the Verbal Review guide, so there's no reason why you couldn't see something like it.

Of course, every question is different, so you're not going to see a question whose logic is identical to this one. So don't agonize too much over the details here. If your overall performance is good, you're in good shape. This particular question is pretty tough, so if you struggle on this one, you're not alone.

I hope that helps a bit!
User avatar
PReciSioN
Joined: 17 Dec 2023
Last visit: 14 Apr 2025
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 47
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
Posts: 99
Kudos: 49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Even if commuting trips contribute to more than 20% of traffic congestion, urban rail systems could still help alleviate traffic congestion by causing non-commuters to switch from road travel to URS. When the officials say that commuting trips consists of only 20% of urban travel, are they not assuming/ reasoning that, well even though URS was not effective in reducing this groups traffic congestion, but helped reduce traffic congestion caused by non-commuters by increasing their usage of URS. But they do not provide any support to show that non-commuter's use of URS did in fact increase.

GMATNinja , avigutman . Could you please let me know where I'm going wrong? Thanks!!
User avatar
avigutman
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 09 Jun 2025
Posts: 1,295
Own Kudos:
1,895
 [2]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,295
Kudos: 1,895
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
PReciSioN
Even if commuting trips contribute to more than 20% of traffic congestion, urban rail systems could still help alleviate traffic congestion by causing non-commuters to switch from road travel to URS. When the officials say that commuting trips consists of only 20% of urban travel, are they not assuming/ reasoning that, well even though URS was not effective in reducing this groups traffic congestion, but helped reduce traffic congestion caused by non-commuters by increasing their usage of URS. But they do not provide any support to show that non-commuter's use of URS did in fact increase.

GMATNinja , avigutman . Could you please let me know where I'm going wrong? Thanks!!
­I think you need to be hyperfocused on the goal, which is to alleviate traffic congestion. Imagine that your job depends on this. Now look at what the officials said, PReciSioN, in their attempt to calm you down (because you're really upset to see that commuters aren't using your URS, which was supposed to save your job):
Quote:
commuting trips in that city represent just 20 percent of urban travel.
So...? Did that calm you down? Are you more hopeful now that URS will save your job after all? 
Now look at the answer choices and see if any of them makes you realize that the officials' point wasn't as reassuring as you had thought.
User avatar
PReciSioN
Joined: 17 Dec 2023
Last visit: 14 Apr 2025
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 47
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
Posts: 99
Kudos: 49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
PReciSioN
Even if commuting trips contribute to more than 20% of traffic congestion, urban rail systems could still help alleviate traffic congestion by causing non-commuters to switch from road travel to URS. When the officials say that commuting trips consists of only 20% of urban travel, are they not assuming/ reasoning that, well even though URS was not effective in reducing this groups traffic congestion, but helped reduce traffic congestion caused by non-commuters by increasing their usage of URS. But they do not provide any support to show that non-commuter's use of URS did in fact increase.

GMATNinja , avigutman . Could you please let me know where I'm going wrong? Thanks!!
­I think you need to be hyperfocused on the goal, which is to alleviate traffic congestion. Imagine that your job depends on this. Now look at what the officials said, PReciSioN, in their attempt to calm you down (because you're really upset to see that commuters aren't using your URS, which was supposed to save your job):
Quote:
commuting trips in that city represent just 20 percent of urban travel.
So...? Did that calm you down? Are you more hopeful now that URS will save your job after all? 
Now look at the answer choices and see if any of them makes you realize that the officials' point wasn't as reassuring as you had thought.
­Hi avigutman , thanks for your response and the wonderful explanation!!

But, when we are talking about the goal - alleviate traffic congestion, isn't our plan not ineffective, if we manage to reduce traffic congestion by a small amount. In that case, even if commuters contribute much much more than 20% of the traffic congestion (say 90%), URS could still be effective in reducing traffic congestion caused by non-commuters right? But to show this, shouldn't the officials actually clarify that non-commuter usage of URS has actually increased, which they have not done?
User avatar
avigutman
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 09 Jun 2025
Posts: 1,295
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,295
Kudos: 1,895
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
 
PReciSioN
But, when we are talking about the goal - alleviate traffic congestion, isn't our plan not ineffective, if we manage to reduce traffic congestion by a small amount. In that case, even if commuters contribute much much more than 20% of the traffic congestion (say 90%), URS could still be effective in reducing traffic congestion caused by non-commuters right? But to show this, shouldn't the officials actually clarify that non-commuter usage of URS has actually increased, which they have not done?
­Right, PReciSioN, the question we are asked is about:
Quote:
The response of the officials to the claim [that urban rail systems are ineffective]
So we should be narrowly focused on the officials' response. Does that clarify it for you?­
User avatar
AnkitNandwani1
Joined: 25 Jul 2022
Last visit: 15 Jun 2025
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 38
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q80 V78 DI80
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q80 V78 DI80
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
Posts: 21
Kudos: 3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The response of the officials to the claim that urban rail systems are ineffective is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

C) fails to consider that commuting trips may cause significantly more than 20 percent of the traffic congestion

This option highlights a critical flaw in the officials' argument. While they correctly note that commuting trips represent only 20 percent of urban travel, they overlook the possibility that these trips could disproportionately contribute to traffic congestion. This could mean that even a relatively small portion of total travel might have a significant impact on congestion, thus making the decline in urban rail commuters more relevant to the issue of traffic management.
User avatar
PReciSioN
Joined: 17 Dec 2023
Last visit: 14 Apr 2025
Posts: 99
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 47
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
Posts: 99
Kudos: 49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
PReciSioN
But, when we are talking about the goal - alleviate traffic congestion, isn't our plan not ineffective, if we manage to reduce traffic congestion by a small amount. In that case, even if commuters contribute much much more than 20% of the traffic congestion (say 90%), URS could still be effective in reducing traffic congestion caused by non-commuters right? But to show this, shouldn't the officials actually clarify that non-commuter usage of URS has actually increased, which they have not done?
­Right, PReciSioN, the question we are asked is about:
Quote:
The response of the officials to the claim [that urban rail systems are ineffective]
So we should be narrowly focused on the officials' response. Does that clarify it for you?­
­Hi avigutman , thanks for the response, but unfortunately that does not clarify it for me.

The officials want to show that URS is not ineffective. To be not ineffective it must reduce traffic congestion, albeit by a small amount. Now even if commuters contribute to much more than 20% of the traffic congestion (say 90%), as long as they don't contribute to all of it, the officials can argue that URS has increased ridership of non-commuters which has decreased traffic congestion (albeit by a small amount.)
But they don't actually give any information about the ridership of non-commuters, which is their flaw.­
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7325 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts