In the last ten years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped b

Question

In the last ten years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped by 90%.Since cell phone usage is much higher among middle- and upper-income residents of Bridgeport than among lower-income residents, the Bridgeport City Council has decided to remove pay phones from middle- and upper-income neighbourhoods, while retaining those in lower-income neighbourhoods, reasoning that this plan will respond appropriately to demand for pay phones and thereby inconvenience very few people.

Which of the following would be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the reasoning of the City Council?

(A) Whether pay phones are used by criminals conducting drug deals
(B) A comparison of pay phone usage between middle income and high income residents
(C) How many low-income residents use cell phones
(D) Whether low-income residents typically use pay phones close to home
(E) Whether eliminating pay phones would lose revenue for the city

sobby · Answer

MY reasoning :The argument mainly juggle around word "inconvenience"
A-- Out of scope
B...Out of Scope
C - may be tempting ..number does not matter....let 90% uses pay phones....Still phones are there in locality of lower income ppl .They can easily find one in their area...
D-Yes , may be lower income ppl work in a higher / middle income area...There will be inconvenience.
E-out of scope

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Simplify the argument to find out the conclusion. The conclusion is what you are trying to evaluate - strengthen/weaken.

Premise 1: - Usage of payphones has declined by 90%.
 Premise 2: - Middle and higher income residents use cell phones (an alternative to pay phones) much more often.

Conclusion:- 
 removing pay phones from middle- and upper-income areas, while retaining them in lower-income areas --> this plan will respond appropriately to demand + inconvenience very few people.

We need something that when supplied with opposite answers strengthens and weakens the conclusion.

let us look at the answer options -

A - Incorrect.
Not relevant as it does not tell us how the new plan will appropriately meed demand and not inconvenience many people as well.

B - Incorrect.
We are comparing "low-income" residents to "middle- and high-income residents", not "middle-" to "high-income residents".

C - Incorrect.
Does not tell us how the new plan will appropriately meed demand and not inconvenience many people as well.

D - Correct.
Supply opposite answers. "NO" - weakens the conclusion that the new plan will inconvenience few people and appropriately meet demand.
"YES" - strengthens the conclusion.

E - Incorrect.
"Revenues" is not the conclusion of the argument. Rather the argument deals with appropriately meeting demand and inconveniencing very few customers.

mailabhishekmathur · Answer

Following is the best reason I can come up with for the answer C. 
A) Irrelevant to the topic
B) Incorrect comparison 
C) Seems logical to some extent but the argument is not discussing if low income people make use of cell phones or not 
D) If true would mean that the low income people might go to the middle and high income locality to make use of the payphone 
E) Revenue is not a part of the discussion

Posted from my mobile device

Skywalker18 · Answer

In the last ten years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped by 90%.Since cell phone usage is much higher among middle- and upper-income residents of Bridgeport than among lower-income residents, the Bridgeport City Council has decided to remove pay phones from middle- and upper-income neighbourhoods, while retaining those in lower-income neighbourhoods, reasoning that this plan will respond appropriately to demand for pay phones and thereby inconvenience very few people.

Type- evaluate

(A) Whether pay phones are used by criminals conducting drug deals - Irrelevant
(B) A comparison of pay phone usage between middle income and high income residents - Irrelevant - middle and high income are in the considered in the same group of high amount of cell phone usage
(C) How many low-income residents use cell phones - irrelevant as the number of not important
(D) Whether low-income residents typically use pay phones close to home - the argument assumes that people use only the pay phones that are in their neighborhood - but if lower income people use the pay phones in other neighbourhoods in which middle and upper income people live then the move will be counterproductive - Correct 
(E) Whether eliminating pay phones would lose revenue for the city - irrelevant

Answer D

kannu44 · Answer

Which of the following would be most helpful to know in order to evaluate the reasoning of the City Council?
(D) Whether low-income residents typically use pay phones close to home

Our goal is to find "two path answer ": an answer that can be interpreted in two ways one of which will strengthen and other of which will weaken the conclusion.

Yes :Low-income residents typically yes pay phone close to home then it is a good idea to remove pay phone from high income and middle-income home area. strengthen conclusion

No: Low-income residents typically do not use phone close to home . In that case it is not a good idea to remove. weaken the conclusion

chesstitans · Answer

boiled down to C and D.
D is a common pattern in gmat, or D can be paraphrased as whether pay phone sticks with the demand in the low-income area.

shashankism · Answer

Premise: In the last ten years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped by 90%.
Premise : Since cell phone usage is much higher among middle- and upper-income residents of Bridgeport than among lower-income residents, the Bridgeport City Council has decided to remove pay phones from middle- and upper-income neighbourhoods, while retaining those in lower-income neighbourhoods, 
Conclusion : reasoning that this plan will respond appropriately to demand for pay phones and thereby inconvenience very few people.

(A) Whether pay phones are used by criminals conducting drug deals
Out of Scope
(B) A comparison of pay phone usage between middle income and high income residents
Comparison between low income and (middle + high income) is required. So Out of Scope.
(C) How many low-income residents use cell phones
This might confuse you. As it doesn't give answer to full conclusion which is removing pay phones from middle- and upper-income neighbourhoods, while retaining those in lower-income neighbourhoods.
 (D) Whether low-income residents typically use pay phones close to home 
This gives clear cut evaluation. If low-income residents use pay phones close to home, decision is correct. If they use pay phones in the area of middle & high-income neighbourhoods (may be if they go for work there), then decision is not correct. So, this is the answer
(E) Whether eliminating pay phones would lose revenue for the city
Revenues is Out of Scope.

SonamRa · Answer

Ans is D as that is appropriate reason to have pay phones in neighborhood with low income group

Posted from my mobile device

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

In the last ten years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped b

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

In the last ten years, usage of pay phones in Bridgeport has dropped b

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