The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used

Question

The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line, and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere. The train would be a fixed linear system, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes. Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the argument presented above?

(A) Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.

(B) Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.

(C) Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train's stations would be.

(D) The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.

(E) For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles! (A classic 1980s comedy. I think it was probably funny, but I've killed a lot of brain cells since the 80s, and can't really remember...)

Here the author concludes that "a sufficient market for the {proposed high-speed} train will not exist." Why not?

The train would be a fixed linear system (with fixed routes). 
 Consumers prefer free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes. 
 A plane would be just as fast as the proposed train, could fly anywhere (free-wheel), and would be cheaper.

So why build a high-speed train line when there is a cheaper, faster, and supposedly more flexible (i.e. free-wheel) option? Now that we understand the structure of the author's argument, we need to find something that weakens that argument:

You might be tempted to choose (A) if you think, "Oh, maybe trains are safer because they leave less room for human error?". But we need something that weakens the author's specific argument, which states that a sufficient  market  for the train will not exist. The author's argument has nothing to do with safety or drivers/pilots vs mechanical guidance. Choice (A) has nothing to do with the market for a high-speed train or with free-wheel vs fixed route systems. Thus, choice (A) does not impact the author's argument and should be eliminated.

Although cars and buses are cited as EXAMPLES of free-wheel systems, the author's argument focuses on planes versus high-speed trains (i.e. why build a train when planes are cheaper, faster, and more flexible)? Furthermore, choice (B) does not address the free-wheel versus fixed route argument made by the author. Even if the trains are much faster, customers might prefer free-wheel systems that allow them to travel anywhere and not just along fixed routes. Eliminate (B).

The passage states that consumers choose free-wheel systems that do not have fixed routes. If a free-wheel system is one that does not have fixed routes and planes are free to fly anywhere, then planes seem to represent a free-wheel system.

However, even though aircraft by themselves might be free-wheel, planes travel along fixed routes. Although planes can theoretically fly anywhere, in reality their routes are limited to airports at fixed locations. If we include the fact that consumers need to use these airports in order to actually travel by plane, the resulting system is not free-wheel.

Since the author's argument is that planes are cheaper, faster, and more flexible (i.e. free-wheel), choice (C) directly weakens that argument. Hang on to this one.

Choice (D) implies that new stations would have to be built in order to use the new high-speed trains. This point would likely be used to argue AGAINST building the high-speed trains. This point likely  strengthens  the author's argument. Regardless, choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

As with choice (D), this seems to support the view that the train line should not be built. Regardless, choice (E) says nothing about the author's argument, which is based on the  market  for high-speed trains. Eliminate (E).

Choice (C) is the best answer.

narangvaibhav · Answer

The main argument of this blurb is that a sufficient market for the train will not exist mainly due to the fact that the train would be a fixed linear system, where as planes, cars and buses do not rely on the fixed linear system.

To weaken this argument IMO you need to state that planes cars and buses do not always rely on the free wheeler system/ or the fact that train would not all be a fixed linear system.

(C) weakens b/c it says that planes are also somewhat fixed as they can only be allowed to fly in b/w airports.

(A) tells us that trains are guided mechanically which could prove as an advantage to other systems, but it does not change that fact that it is still relying on a fixed linear system which is far inferior than a free wheeler system.

metallicafan · Answer

The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line, and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere.  The train would be a fixed linear system, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes.  Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist. 
 
Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the argument presented above?
 
(A) Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.
(B) Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be. 
(C) Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train's stations would be.
(D) The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.
(E) For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.

I agree with the OA.
However, it is tricky to find the conclusion (in blue) because the sentence in red seems to be the conclusion if you don't pay enough attention (It is at the end of the argument and used the word "thus").
In this sense, I would like to know whether there is a method or approach to find the conclusion in this type of tricky questions in a faster way. CR Powerscore Bible suggests to organize the ideas to find what statement is consequence of another statement; however, it takes time. Thanks!

Carcass · Answer

is true that the conclusion not always is founded at the end of the stimulus (98% of time YES).

However, i disagree with you; for me the red phrase is the conclusion, and even not, the key point of the entire situation is that train are NOT convenient.

We have to find something that says train IS convenient. C does.

During this (huge, monster, crazy , amazing, unbelievable) exam one of the central point is : understand what's going on on the problem. As Ron says:  be flexible

Without consider or not the conclusion.

First sentence: The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line, and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere. -------> what 's that mean: train as more expensive than plane.

Second sentence: he train would be a fixed linear system, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes ---------> we live in a world with a lot of movement where wheels are a problem rather than plane.

Thierd sentence: Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist ----------> Train has no (or will not) market sufficient enough to develope.

I do not see the process above takes much time. At most 20 seconds. This collimate with what CR Bible says

That's it

ChrisLele · Answer

I also think the conclusion is in red. The blue part provides a few reasons (prices, range of mobility, etc.) to support the conclusion, which states there will be no market for the train line.

(C) directly weakens this conclusion by stating that there will be a market: using planes one can only fly from airport to airport. Thus many will still rely on trains for those areas in which using an airport will be inconvenient.

@metallicafan, Btw, was there another answer choice you were drawn to?

abid1986 · Answer

In this question how can we can weaken the conclusion by questioning the premise itself that planes are not a free wheel system,whereas in premise its mentioned consumers choose the free wheel systems (cars,buses,aircraft).
Aircraft and planes are two different things?

egmat · Answer

Hi Abid,

No, I don't think the argument is playing on the difference between aircraft and planes. By the way, technically, an airplane is a kind of aircraft.

It seems to me a rare case of attacking the premise.

Due to lack of any better options, this is the right one.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

jayarora · Answer

I am shocked that this is an official question. Any answer that goes against the premise is incorrect. Option C clearly goes against what is stated in the passage. I feel option B weakens the conclusion because if cars and buses are not as fast as high-speed train, then there could be a market for these trains. Thus doesn't B weaken the conclusion?

GMATNinja · Answer

The passage states that consumers choose free-wheel systems that do not have fixed routes. If a free-wheel system is one that does not have fixed routes and planes are free to fly anywhere, then planes can indeed be considered a free-wheel system.

Choice (C) doesn't actually contradict this information; rather, choice (C) elaborates by stating that, although planes can  theoretically  fly anywhere, in reality their routes are limited to airports at fixed locations. If we include the fact that consumers need to use these airports in order to actually travel by plane, the resulting system is not free-wheel. This does not directly contradict the author's notion that an aircraft, by itself, can be considered free-wheel.

As for choice (B), the author's argument is not based on speed but rather on convenience of routes. The train might be 20 times faster than cars and buses, but if the train stations are not convenient for travelers, the travelers will not take the train.

adkikani · Answer

GMATNinja ,  GMATNinjaTwo ,

In a CR argument, we treat the premise as TRUE on its face value.

Argument says:
The train would be a fixed linear system, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes.

This statement is a fact, and it clearly says: Aircraft (as as system, not plane individually) are free wheel systems ie one that can reach out in all directions.

Does not option C goes against the premise - Planes are NOT free wheeled system?
I believe we CAN NOT challenge the premise but we need to break link between premise and conclusion.

Also do we not need additional supporting evidence against cars and buses too, which are not mentioned in option C.

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

The passage states that consumers choose free-wheel systems that do not have fixed routes. If a free-wheel system is one that does not have fixed routes and planes are free to fly anywhere, then planes can indeed be considered a free-wheel system.

Choice (C) doesn't actually contradict this information; rather, choice (C) elaborates by stating that, although planes can theoretically fly anywhere, in reality their routes are limited to airports at fixed locations. If we include the fact that consumers need to use these airports in order to actually travel by plane, the resulting system is not free-wheel. This does not directly contradict the author's notion that an aircraft, by itself, can be considered free-wheel.

With that in mind, check out the explanation for choice (C) in the  post below . Hopefully it makes more sense now!

CAMANISHPARMAR · Answer

Official Explanation:-

Argument Evaluation

Situation A free-wheel system of transportation, the airplane, is as fast as a fixed linear system, the high-speed train. Because people prefer free-wheel systems that do not have fixed routes, the high-speed train will never find a sufficient market.

Reasoning What is the potential weakness in this argument? The passage argues that consumers will choose to fly rather than use the high-speed train. The argument is based upon a consumer preference for free-wheel systems over fixed linear systems. The definition of a free-wheel system is one that does not have fixed routes. The argument is weakened by any challenge to the definition of flying as a free-wheel transportation system. It is true that airplanes may be able to go almost anywhere, but commercial airlines do establish fixed routes and necessarily must travel to and from airports. Furthermore, if airports are less conveniently located for consumers than are train terminals, consumers might well prefer the more convenient of the two fixed-route alternatives.

A The method of guidance is irrelevant to the argument about free-wheel versus fixed linear systems.
B The passage compares the speed and system models of airplanes and high-speed trains. The argument does not incorporate buses and cars, which are included only to give examples of freewheel systems, and so this statement is irrelevant.
C Correct. This statement properly identifies the weakness in the argument: Airplanes are not truly a free-wheel system because they are restricted to traveling between airports. Additionally, airports tend to be less conveniently located than train terminals, which has further potential to
weaken the argument in favor of airplanes.
D The inability of high-speed trains to use some convenient train stations strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument in favor of airplanes.
E Consumer preference for air travel over ground travel on long trips strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument in favor of airplanes.

The correct answer is C.

nightblade354 · Answer

Video Explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMNXzM_wwFs

MMishra012 · Answer

X (car, bus, planes are free wheels) - causes Y ( not sufficient market for high speed trains)
To weaken we have to prove sufficient market for trains can exist

A - both require guidance so cannot pick why train will have market demand
B - negative of car and buses, can be a reason to pick trains but again people will go for aircraft (fast and free wheel)
C - attacks the premise itself that car, bus and planes are freewheels. This is a case of Xnot. Therefore, people will have to pick trains - sufficient market for train can exist
D - in support of conclusion as to why limited demand or insufficient demand for trains as they cannot use underutilised stationms
E - supports conclusion that people will fly so not sufficient market for trains

The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used

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 difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used

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