Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will su

Question

Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will surely not make it financially viable. After all, the reason the system is now government-owned is precisely that in 1979 its original private owners went bankrupt operating it.

Ms. Gallis: But remember that government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970’s.

Ms. Gallis: But remember that government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970’s.

Of the following, the best assessment of the logical role played by Ms. Gallis’ response is that her response

A. offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead’s conclusion

B. states one of Mr. Mead’s tacit assumptions

C. contradicts Mr. Mead’s factual claims about the system’s original owners

D. identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion

E. implies that Mr. Mead’s conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives

CR16896

AndrewN · Accepted Answer

Hello,  RiseAndShinee . I will offer my thoughts on the question in an effort to help you and the larger community. The question stem requires us to fill in information that essentially describes the function of the response that Ms. Gallis provides in the passage. So, what does the passage say?

Mr. Mead starts with an argument:  private ownership  of the subway system  will surely not make it financially viable . We then get a look at his explanation— after all  is similar to  because  or  since  as a premise marker. Private owners of the subway system in 1979  went bankrupt operating it , so they apparently had to turn over its control to the government. According to Mr. Mead, then, since private owners failed once, they will certainly fail again, should the government hand control of the subway system back over to them.

Ms. Gallis counters. We know this as soon as we read the word  but  at the beginning of her response. She provides a broader context for understanding the bankruptcy of the original private owners in 1979: government-mandated controls on prices  were keeping fares  unreasonably  low in the 1970's . If this were true, then it would make more sense that the private owners of a fare-based subway system might have faced financial difficulties by the end of the seventies.

What do the answer choices offer that falls in line with our understanding of the passage?

If Mr. Mead were correct, then why would Ms. Gallis disagree? There is nothing in her response that indicates that she is in agreement with Mr. Mead's conclusion, starting with that first word,  but .

Again, the two people are at loggerheads about the evidence used to back up the original argument. Mr. Mead sees private ownership as a recipe for disaster, pointing to the failure of private owners to keep the subway system afloat back in the seventies; Ms. Gallis says that the government may have been responsible for bankrupting those owners. A  tacit assumption  would be one that would fuel the argument of Mr. Mead, whether it was correct or misguided.

This one starts off well enough, but then it veers off course when it gets into claims about the  owners  of the original system. In fact, Ms. Gallis does not even mention these owners. She focuses on the policies of the government instead.

Spot on. Mr. Mead bases his argument on a case from the seventies; Ms. Gallis questions the validity of that evidence, citing a larger framework under which the privately owned subway system had been operating, one that could have caused its owners to go bankrupt. Perhaps Mr. Mead has narrowed his view too much and failed to take into account this other factor.

There is no such implication. It could be true, for all we know, that Ms. Gallis agrees that private ownership of the subway system will fail, but we get no view on the matter from her rebuttal in the passage. She more or less nudges Mr. Mead in a different direction, reminding him of the circumstances of the time period in question. Whether Mr. Mead is supposed to amend his argument or abandon it altogether, we will never know.

I hope that helps break down the question. If anyone has further questions, I would be happy to offer my thoughts.

- Andrew

Kritisood · Answer

Evidence used by M: private owners went bankrupt operating the subway
weakness spotted by G: government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970’s.

Hence IMO, D.

MBAApp19 · Answer

Ans : D

Pre thinking : Gallis is giving an alternate reason for us to evaluate the conclusion made by Maed

Leaves us with option D and E

Gallis doesn’t say anything private ownership will help or not - she simply states the cause of a particular effect . Eliminate E. conclusion of Maed could be true or false

D in line with pre thinking

Posted from my mobile device

aggvipul · Answer

D stands out as the winner,

A. offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead’s conclusion - It is a 180

B. states one of Mr. Mead’s tacit assumptions- assumptions?

C. contradicts Mr. Mead’s factual claims about the system’s original owners- no contradiction whatsoever

D. identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion- Bingo

E. implies that Mr. Mead’s conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives- Mr. Mead’s conclusion is  Turning this subway system over to private ownership will surely not make it financially viable  hence the option is incorrect

debjit1990 · Answer

Ans: D

D. identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion

Mr. Mead cites that in 1979 its original private owners went bankrupt operating the subway.
Ms. Gallis in response says that it went bankrupt as govt controlled the price and made it very low back than.
So Ms. Gallis find an weakness in the Mr Mead's statement.

RiseAndShinee · Answer

Unable to narrow down to OA. Please help.

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

A. offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead’s conclusion  -  Ms Gallis does not agree with Mr Mead's reasoning. 
  
B. states one of Mr. Mead’s tacit assumptions  -  Ms Gallis' statement is not an assumption used by Mr. Mead.
  
C. contradicts Mr. Mead’s factual claims about the system’s original owners  -  Ms Gallis agrees with Mr Mead on the ownership of the subway system. 
 
 D. identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion - Ms Gillis' statement provides another reason why private ownership of the subway system had to file for bankruptcy; her statement challenges Mr Mead's reasoning that 'private owners' themselves were to blame for the bankruptcy filed by them. Hence, (D) weakens the evidence used by Mr Mead. Therefore,  (D) is the right answer choice . 
  
E. implies that Mr. Mead’s conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives  -  She does not agree with Mr Mead's conclusion.

mSKR · Answer

Hi  AndrewN  sir

I have a general query.

I read the explanation and found I did mistake in understanding the meaning of  correctness

While solving question: I read it as Mr. G CORRECTED Mr. M conclusion
But actual meaning of correctness: confirming the conclusion

Usually I drive the meaning from making sentence in my memory (Example: kindly correct me , oh ok  correctness  so he is correcting his conclusion? Yes , A seems perfect . When read D then fight between A vs D. Finally went with A)

My query: the change in meaning makes A as good option or wrong option. How can we avoid such mistakes.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  mSKR . I would say there is another issue besides simply not knowing the definition of a crucial word. (I think you would understand  correctness  the next time you saw it.) In your interpretation of (A), you seem to have missed other contextual clues that would have revealed the meaning of the word in question. Consider:

offers additional evidence for ______

We get two clues that together point to support more than disagreement— additional  +  for . If you offer evidence that runs contrary to other evidence, you would say that you offered evidence  against  something, not  for  something, particularly after the word  additional . In other words, (A) makes it clear that Ms. Gallis was apparently providing further  support  FOR the view of Mr. Mead, and that begs the question, why would she start her response with  but ?

When you adopt a meaning-based approach, you have to make sure you are taking in more than just the information you want to see. Transition words (e.g., however, thus), idioms, and conjunctions work together in passages and answer choices to create a logical map.

I hope that helps with your query. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will surely not make it financially viable. - Conclusion. 
After all, the reason the system is now government-owned is precisely that in 1979 its original private owners went bankrupt operating it. - Fact. Supporting premise.

Ms. Gallis: But remember that government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970’s. - Fact. Qualifies the supporting premise.

Option Elimination - Method of reasoning

A. offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead’s conclusion - so she doesn't support his conclusion. This is the opposite of what we need.

B. states one of Mr. Mead’s tacit assumptions - No. An assumption is a missing premise or minimum condition that will support the conclusion, but this weakens the force of the conclusion. Again, this is the opposite of what we need.

C. contradicts Mr. Mead’s factual claims about the system’s original owners - out of scope.

D. identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion - ok.

E. implies that Mr. Mead’s conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives - she doesn't support his conclusion.

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.

Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will su

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

Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will su

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