Last visit was: 24 Apr 2026, 23:37 It is currently 24 Apr 2026, 23:37
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
 1   2   
655-705 (Hard)|   Weaken|      
User avatar
TGC
User avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Last visit: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 572
Own Kudos:
3,621
 [36]
Given Kudos: 322
Concentration: General Management, General Management
Schools: ISB '16 NUS '17 NTU '17 XLRI SMU '17 IIM Lucknow IPMX'16 (A)
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE:Information Technology (Finance: Investment Banking)
Schools: ISB '16 NUS '17 NTU '17 XLRI SMU '17 IIM Lucknow IPMX'16 (A)
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
Posts: 572
Kudos: 3,621
 [36]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 21 Jan 2013, 08:33
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
22
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

64% (01:58) correct 36% (02:06) wrong based on 1785 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?


A. In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.

C. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.

D. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.

E. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
B
avatar
navinag
avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Last visit: 23 Aug 2013
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
6
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 4
Kudos: 6
 [3]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 21 Jan 2013, 12:50
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
targetgmatchotu
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep
Show more

C seems more likely than B.
B talks about the pollution created by high-speed trains versus the planes, both in normal mode of operation. But the stem talks about the pollution created by planes congesting the airport which would result in higher pollution per passenger than by the planes in normal mode of operation. So, 'B' doesn't weaken it a whole lot. However, if C is true, then the plan will be ineffective in reducing the airport traffic as most most people are flying to cities more than 800 km away, thereby weakening the proposal.
User avatar
Carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,709
Own Kudos:
37,846
 [1]
Given Kudos: 4,925
Posts: 4,709
Kudos: 37,846
 [1]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 21 Jan 2013, 13:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
navinag
targetgmatchotu
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep

C seems more likely than B.
B talks about the pollution created by high-speed trains versus the planes, both in normal mode of operation. But the stem talks about the pollution created by planes congesting the airport which would result in higher pollution per passenger than by the planes in normal mode of operation. So, 'B' doesn't weaken it a whole lot. However, if C is true, then the plan will be ineffective in reducing the airport traffic as most most people are flying to cities more than 800 km away, thereby weakening the proposal.
Show more


No here we do not care of something over 800 km. is beyond the scope of the question.

B is the correct answer
avatar
navinag
avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Last visit: 23 Aug 2013
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 4
Kudos: 6
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 21 Jan 2013, 13:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
navinag
targetgmatchotu
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep

C seems more likely than B.
B talks about the pollution created by high-speed trains versus the planes, both in normal mode of operation. But the stem talks about the pollution created by planes congesting the airport which would result in higher pollution per passenger than by the planes in normal mode of operation. So, 'B' doesn't weaken it a whole lot. However, if C is true, then the plan will be ineffective in reducing the airport traffic as most most people are flying to cities more than 800 km away, thereby weakening the proposal.


No here we do not care of something over 800 km. is beyond the scope of the question.

B is the correct answer
Show more


Would you please explain why you consider C to be out of scope ?
User avatar
Carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,709
Own Kudos:
37,846
 [2]
Given Kudos: 4,925
Posts: 4,709
Kudos: 37,846
 [2]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 21 Jan 2013, 14:47
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.
avatar
navinag
avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Last visit: 23 Aug 2013
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
6
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 4
Kudos: 6
 [2]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 21 Jan 2013, 20:28
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.
Show more

Re-reading the option choice "The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away" tells me that it talks about 'the majority of passengers departing from rural airports' which may form a very small percentage of overall passenger traffic incoming at the city airport. That'd invalidate this option, but definitely not the reason " we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over".

Any other thoughts anybody ?
avatar
amitprakash09
avatar
Joined: 17 Nov 2012
Last visit: 29 Apr 2018
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 31 Aug 2013, 05:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.
Show more

Could you please explain why is D wrong
User avatar
blueseas
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Last visit: 15 Jan 2019
Posts: 572
Own Kudos:
4,535
 [3]
Given Kudos: 197
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: PGDM (GM) '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Schools: PGDM (GM) '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Posts: 572
Kudos: 4,535
 [3]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 31 Aug 2013, 05:16
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
amitprakash09
carcass
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.

Could you please explain why is D wrong
Show more

conclusion:
trains ==>this will reduce congestion ,reduce pollution...and they are also profitable.
now we have to weaken this conclusion.

option D says:
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
it is just stating fact ..that airports are in construction this has no effect on conlusion...

hope it helps.
User avatar
blueseas
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Last visit: 15 Jan 2019
Posts: 572
Own Kudos:
4,535
 [2]
Given Kudos: 197
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: PGDM (GM) '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Schools: PGDM (GM) '15 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Posts: 572
Kudos: 4,535
 [2]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 31 Aug 2013, 05:18
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
simply because we care about the stretch between 300 and 800 km not over.
Show more

no this is not true.

option C is wrong because it is just talking about rural airports.....hence that option is not considering the full scenarios.(excluding airports from urban areas)
User avatar
ankur1901
User avatar
Joined: 23 May 2013
Last visit: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
294
 [1]
Given Kudos: 109
Posts: 72
Kudos: 294
 [1]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 06 Dec 2013, 07:46
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
not able to understand why B is correct. It say that pollution per passenger is more for trains. So the argument assumes that number of passenger travelling in the train is more that that of plane. While generally this may be true, it may not be always true.

eg if there are 100 person travelling by train and 300 by airplane, then pollution by train may be less than plane. what am i missing here?
User avatar
Carcass
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Last visit: 23 Apr 2026
Posts: 4,709
Own Kudos:
37,846
 [2]
Given Kudos: 4,925
Posts: 4,709
Kudos: 37,846
 [2]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 06 Dec 2013, 09:42
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ankur1901
not able to understand why B is correct. It say that pollution per passenger is more for trains. So the argument assumes that number of passenger travelling in the train is more that that of plane. While generally this may be true, it may not be always true.

eg if there are 100 person travelling by train and 300 by airplane, then pollution by train may be less than plane. what am i missing here?
Show more

buyt here you are assuming a sort of information that you bring from the outside, from the real world.

You must weaken the argument according to the info IN the argument: the question if we have more passengers who use trains more than planes is not our concern in this precise moment.

hope this help
User avatar
jlgdr
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Last visit: 24 Jul 2015
Posts: 1,302
Own Kudos:
2,977
Given Kudos: 355
Concentration: Finance
Schools: Wharton '17 (A) HBS '17 (WA$)
Schools: Wharton '17 (A) HBS '17 (WA$)
Posts: 1,302
Kudos: 2,977
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 09 Jan 2014, 09:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
carcass
ankur1901
not able to understand why B is correct. It say that pollution per passenger is more for trains. So the argument assumes that number of passenger travelling in the train is more that that of plane. While generally this may be true, it may not be always true.

eg if there are 100 person travelling by train and 300 by airplane, then pollution by train may be less than plane. what am i missing here?

buyt here you are assuming a sort of information that you bring from the outside, from the real world.

You must weaken the argument according to the info IN the argument: the question if we have more passengers who use trains more than planes is not our concern in this precise moment.

hope this help
Show more

Also 'rural' is a key word, that is not mentioned anywhere in stimulus. One fake move (or word on this case) and you're done

But still between B and C it is a close call. I personally like B better, but that's just me.
User avatar
Paris75
User avatar
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Last visit: 22 Jul 2024
Posts: 126
Own Kudos:
137
 [2]
Given Kudos: 401
Status:Student
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
Posts: 126
Kudos: 137
 [2]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 06 Oct 2014, 02:04
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TGC
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep
Show more

Tricky one.

The answer rely on the rural word, in order to see that answer B is good over C.

Why answer C is wrong: Imagine there are 100 people travelling. Perhaps only 1 is traveling through a rural airport! Therefore, 99 travel through a non-rural airport and perhaps they are travelling between 300 and 800 km!

The answer is therefore B.
User avatar
PagalGuru
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Last visit: 30 Jul 2015
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
48
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 4
Kudos: 48
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 07 Oct 2014, 08:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TGC
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep
Show more

B States that high speed trains would cause more pollution per passenger than airplanes however, we do not know the no of passengers in airplanes vs in trains so we can't conclude which one does more overall pollution (if total passengers is lesser in trains and pollution per passenger is little more in trains then overall contribution to pollution might still be lower in case of trains than planes)

The author is assuming that most airplane passengers travel between 300 to 800 Kms hence, creating train service between 300 to 800 might decrease the pollution done by planes. Any option that undermines this assumption weakens the conclusion. C is doing so.
User avatar
iikarthik
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Feb 2016
Posts: 43
Own Kudos:
94
 [1]
Given Kudos: 23
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: IIMA
Posts: 43
Kudos: 94
 [1]
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 14 Sep 2015, 09:59
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PagalGuru
TGC
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep

B States that high speed trains would cause more pollution per passenger than airplanes however, we do not know the no of passengers in airplanes vs in trains so we can't conclude which one does more overall pollution (if total passengers is lesser in trains and pollution per passenger is little more in trains then overall contribution to pollution might still be lower in case of trains than planes)

The author is assuming that most airplane passengers travel between 300 to 800 Kms hence, creating train service between 300 to 800 might decrease the pollution done by planes. Any option that undermines this assumption weakens the conclusion. C is doing so.
Show more


The most important word is option C is the Adjective" rural" and this makes this choice out of scope as the passage is talking about Major cities ( urban not the rural ones)
avatar
vinnisatija
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2015
Last visit: 08 Jan 2017
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
11
Given Kudos: 73
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: UFL '17 UFlorida '18
Schools: UFL '17 UFlorida '18
Posts: 26
Kudos: 11
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 14 Sep 2015, 16:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.

Wrong : Seems out of Scope.No mention about the pollution that is caused or the congestion.

The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
Correct: This directly addresses as to why the plan would be opposed on the grounds that the pollution would increase.

The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Wrong: Please notice carefully.This talks about the majority of passengers from Rural airports not all airports.Thus lets say if we have 1000 urban airports and 100 rural airports then the argument would still hold true.

Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
Wrong: Out of scope.

A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Wrong : Out of scope
User avatar
mvictor
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Last visit: 14 Jul 2021
Posts: 2,118
Own Kudos:
1,277
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '20 (WD)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Stanford '20 (WD)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
Posts: 2,118
Kudos: 1,277
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 01 Jan 2016, 20:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TGC
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?

In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.
The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.
The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.
Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.
A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.
Source: Veri prep
Show more

I fell for C, and now I see why it is incorrect, yet I disagree with B, at least partially.

the argument says that to reduce congestion and the pollution, a train is needed. what if the people who travel from airports are not travelling between major cities in China?
I say that a more valid option such as: providing information that would prove that the congestion would continue is more appropriate.
User avatar
Skywalker18
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Last visit: 15 Nov 2023
Posts: 1,973
Own Kudos:
10,169
Given Kudos: 171
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 1,973
Kudos: 10,169
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 15 Dec 2016, 11:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Boil it down -New plan of high-speed train service would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and reduce the number of airplanes clogging and pollution
Type- Weaken

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes. Correct
C.The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away. - Incorrect -over 800 km is out of scope. Also we don't know rural airports constitute what percentage of total airports.
avatar
Visage2c
avatar
Joined: 07 Apr 2016
Last visit: 02 Oct 2018
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 23
Posts: 4
Kudos: 4
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 15 Dec 2016, 12:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I don't think B fits the bill!!

Reason: Only if the number of passengers are assumed to be equal for the plane and train, B could work.
Otherwise,
Let's assume for the trains the Pollution/Passenger is 20.
Similarly for the planes it's 10.
If the number of passengers for trains are 50, then total pollution level is 1000.
And if the number of passengers for planes are 200, the pollution level is 2000.

So planes could not be effective, even though pollution/passenger of train is higher than the plane.

Correct me if I am wrong.
User avatar
Skywalker18
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Last visit: 15 Nov 2023
Posts: 1,973
Own Kudos:
10,169
Given Kudos: 171
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 1,973
Kudos: 10,169
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the 15 Dec 2016, 20:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Visage2c
I don't think B fits the bill!!

Reason: Only if the number of passengers are assumed to be equal for the plane and train, B could work.
Otherwise,
Let's assume for the trains the Pollution/Passenger is 20.
Similarly for the planes it's 10.
If the number of passengers for trains are 50, then total pollution level is 1000.
And if the number of passengers for planes are 200, the pollution level is 2000.

So planes could not be effective, even though pollution/passenger of train is higher than the plane.

Correct me if I am wrong.
Show more

Hi Visage2c ,
We need to weaken the argument that the construction of high-speed train service is a better plan than airport expansion.
Now as per your example , the total pollution caused by trains for 50 passengers is 1000 . But if airport expansion occurs and these passengers use airplanes instead of high-speed train then the total pollution caused by these 50 people would drop to 500 .
So that indeed weakens the plan.

Hope this helps!! :)
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
504 posts
bhanu29
358 posts