The flight from country T to country D takes 5 hours

Question

The flight from Country D to Country T takes 5 hours and includes two layovers along the way. The time by train is only 4.5 hours. To save time and money, vacationers from Country D should take the train to Country T.

Which of the following, if true, would best strengthen the above argument?

A. For most residents of Country D, costs of the trip via train are the same as costs of the trip via plane.
B. The routes for both the flight and the train ride from Country T to Country D are the same as the respective routes going in the opposite direction.
C. The flight time of 5 hours is atypical for the trip from Country D to Country T.
D. The train ride from Country D to Country T offers a higher level of comfort.
E. The airline that flies from Country D to Country T no longer offers bonus points that can be redeemed for a cash rebate.

Show Spoiler

Does not the OE conclude that OA is B?

Attachment:

kap.jpg [ 187.16 KiB | Viewed 8078 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

B

saikarthikreddy · Answer

A is the correct answer .
When the cost is the same for both the train and flight journeys and time for the train journey is lesser ,then the train journey is more efficient regardless of all other factors .

omerrauf · Answer

I think the answer is B. Key words are to save "time and money". The return trip for vacationers will also save time, half an hour extra. So in total vacationers save an hour if they travel by train. Even if cost is constant, this will strengthen the superiority of the train. Hence Answer B.

dreamchase · Answer

Since the argument discusses vacationers, which must by definition return to D, the argument must ensure that even the return journey by train maintains the half hour advantage and not just forward journey. For example, 
Forward journey by flight = 5 hrs, Return journey = 5 hrs.
Forward journey by train = 4.5 hrs, return journey = 6 hrs.
In this case, forward+return trip by train does not save time.

Hence, B.

ArunangsuSahu · Answer

Clearly OA is (A). It talks about the cost to be same for the Train to be more advantageous and a reason why the vacationers will not fly .

AbhishekDhanraJ72 · Answer

i choose E because question is talking about saving money and if people used to save some money earlier while traveling on airplane by reedeming bonus point for cash but they can not get bonus point now then it strenghten our argument. isn't it????

agar123 · Answer

Can somebody please explain why A is wrong? As conclusion was about time and money both. we knew that there is a time saving of half an hour but we didn't know about the money so the first thing that comes to mind is that author has made assumptions about money. So choice A was matching. My question is that A and B both are close. we can think about the return journey time as well, but how to reject A?

crimson_noise · Answer

The correct answer is A. For most residents of Country D, costs of the trip via train are the same as costs of the trip via plane.

The original argument suggests that vacationers should take the train instead of the flight to save both time and money. The argument is built on two factors: time and money. The passage already establishes that the train is faster (4.5 hours versus 5 hours for the flight), but it assumes that taking the train would also help save money.

Answer A directly supports the "save money" claim. If the cost of the trip is the same for both modes, then choosing the train makes sense given it is faster; this strengthens the argument that the train is objectively the better option in terms of the factors presented.

Other options:
- Option B merely relates to route direction and doesn’t affect the decision-making criteria about saving time and money.
- Option C comments on the typicality of the flight duration and does not compare costs or strengthen the train argument.
- Option D introduces comfort, which is not part of the original argument focusing on time and money; it adds a different factor.
- Option E discusses loss of bonus points, but only for those who value airline loyalty programs—not everyone—and doesn’t directly address the saving of money for "most vacationers."

Only A ensures that the money-saving claim stands up alongside the time advantage, making the recommendation more compelling and logical.

iridium23 · Answer

GMATNinja  could you help here pls?

Tinytrotter · Answer

I take your point that there is a clear time advantage which gets established in Choice (B) but an assumption is made here that either the costs of both flight & train in this option are the same or that saving time takes a higher priority than savings costs.

At least in Choice (A), we have a higher chance of being correct because we are given information about the costs being the same and while it only talks about the journey one way and the time saving therein, we get 3 out of the 4 variables necessary to establish whether train is a superior choice or flight.

Can someone please share the OA for this?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

This looks like a case of a common problem. The question writer took "best strengthen" too literally and thought it was fine to include multiple strengthens, expecting us to pick the most important one. That's not how these tasks work. When the GMAT asks which answer "most strengthens," there should really only be one credible strengthener. The "most" is there to keep us from worrying about speculative edge cases and to remind us that the answer still only strengthens to a certain extent--it will rarely (if ever) prove the argument correct. Think of it as something the legal team requires to cover the question in case of perceived ambiguity.

So here we have A, which suggests that we won't lose any money when we save time. That definitely helps the argument. 
B doesn't tell us anything about money, but it suggests that there are no potential time savings on the return end of the flight. I see why the author thinks this is a strengthener, but it requires us to assume that if there WERE an advantage to flying back, we couldn't just take the train one way and fly home. We shouldn't have to bring in real-world knowledge about round-trip savings. I would not consider this a valid strengthener on the GMAT.
E rules out at least one potential financial benefit of flying, so it strengthens the argument. This is a very normal way to strengthen--by ruling out a potential objection.

So that leaves us with three possibilities for strengtheners. B is questionable, and A seems the most direct, but we shouldn't have to choose between strengtheners.

(Meanwhile, C and D are out.

C is a possible weakener, but the question isn't written clearly enough. The original premise says "the flight from Country D to Country T," as if only one flight route exists. So then C seems to contradict the premise, which a real answer won't do. The premise should refer clearly to a specific flight if that's the intent.

D looks like a strengthener, but it's about comfort, so it doesn't do anything to address saving time and money. We could argue that it's one more reason we  should  choose this option to save time and money, but again, this isn't how a GMAT question would work. Besides, we don't need any more contenders unless we're going to rewrite this as an EXCEPT question!)

The flight from country T to country D takes 5 hours

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 flight from country T to country D takes 5 hours

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