Hello, everyone. Since I dug this question out of the vault, I feel obliged to provide an Expert response, even if there are two well reasoned posts in the thread already. Notice that this is a fairly typical
weaken the plan question. We are not being asked to weaken an argument; rather, we want to select an answer that most suggests that the plan may be ill-conceived.
Quote:
Trancorp currently transports all its goods to Burland Island by truck. The only bridge over the channel separating Burland from the mainland is congested, and trucks typically spend hours in traffic. Trains can reach the channel more quickly than trucks, and freight cars can be transported to Burland by barges that typically cross the channel in an hour. Therefore, to reduce shipping time, Trancorp plans to switch to trains and barges to transport goods to Burland.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most serious doubt on whether Trancorp's plan will succeed?
- Sentence one describes the current situation: all goods are transported to the island by truck
- Sentence two tells us that there is a single bridge to the island, and that it gets congested, causing trucks to spend hours in traffic
- Sentence three provides insight into other modes of transportation: trains are faster than trucks, and barges can pick up the freight and relay it to the island in about an hour
- Sentence four is the plan: to reduce shipping time, the company aims to switch to trains and barges to transport goods
Seems like a good idea, right? Just keep in mind that the stated goal is
to reduce shipping time. It is easy to get tangled up sometimes in associative thoughts that might be present in the answer choices.
Quote:
(A)
It does not cost significantly more to transport goods to Burland by truck than it does to transport goods by train and barge.
Although
cost might fit into the equation in real life, the passage says nothing about any budget constraints. Furthermore, we would expect a weakener to say that trains and barges would cost
more to operate, not that trucks do not cost
significantly more. If trucks may cost more at all and also take longer to transport goods, then the plan would seem all the better to implement.
Quote:
(B) The
number of cars traveling over the bridge into Burland
is likely to increase slightly over the next two years.
More cars equals more anticipated roadway congestion, if Trancorp continues to rely on trucks for its island deliveries. Again, this consideration would seem to make the plan a better idea.
Quote:
(C) Because there has been so much traffic on the roads leading to the bridge between Burland and the mainland, these
roads are in extremely poor condition.
Well, if road conditions are poor, why not use trains and barges? There is no compelling reason to abandon the plan here.
Quote:
(D)
Barges that arrive at Burland
typically wait several hours for their turn to be unloaded.
Perhaps the trains could still be put to good use, but this barge relay idea is shot if the barges cannot be unloaded more efficiently. (This would be the equivalent of congestion on the water.) Again, if the goal is
to reduce shipping time, then it does not make sense to rely on these barges for the speedy transportation of goods.
Quote:
(E) Most trucks transporting goods into Burland
return to the mainland empty.
I am not even sure what to make of this information. Would it make a difference if the trucks came back partially or entirely loaded (perhaps with goods to export, trash that needed to be disposed of properly, etc.)? This consideration has nothing to do with the plan to reduce the shipping time of
getting goods to the island. Keep your eyes on the prize, as the saying goes.
Perhaps the question makes more sense now. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew