Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
28 Apr 2025, 08:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
67% (02:00) correct
33%
(02:10)
wrong
based on 181
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The new subway line, opened barely a year ago to alleviate traffic congestion, has already been deemed insufficient for satisfying demand. The State Transport Authority (STA), com- missioned by the Mayor’s office to come up with solutions, has admitted that even if more trains and carriages are added, the demand is such that only a 23% reduction in congestion would be feasible. For this reason, the city council is now considering building a new highway linking the downtown business district with the East Canton suburbs.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion of the above passage?
(A) A year is insufficient time to judge the viability of the subway.
(B) A ride-sharing scheme has been successfully operating for more than a year.
(C) The business district suffers from a chronic shortage of parking spaces.
(D) Some residents in the business district are opposed to the scheme.
(E) The cost of the proposed highway would severely strain the city’s budget.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion of the above passage?
(A) A year is insufficient time to judge the viability of the subway.
(B) A ride-sharing scheme has been successfully operating for more than a year.
(C) The business district suffers from a chronic shortage of parking spaces.
(D) Some residents in the business district are opposed to the scheme.
(E) The cost of the proposed highway would severely strain the city’s budget.
29 Apr 2025, 16:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
C seems to be out of scope. The argument is about traffic congestions, not about shortage of parking spaces. It's a long way to infer that the traffic congestion happens because cars are driving in the streets waiting for a space to pull over that neves comes at all. In addiction, if we have to weaken the argument, the fact that there are a shortage of parking spaces might justify the new highway.
29 Apr 2025, 20:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
gabgol1998
The shortage of parking spaces does not justify the new highway. It does the opposite. If parking spaces are limited, why would people want to drive? They won't have a space to park their vehicles. So, a shortage of parking spaces leads people to use an alternate mode of transport.
Now, let's understand why C most weakens the conclusion.
The overall conclusion/argument is that the City Council wants to build a new highway linking the downtown business district with the East Canton suburbs.
The reasoning they give is:
- New subway line has been deemed insufficient for satisfying demand.
- The State Transport Authority (STA) admitted that even if more trains and carriages are added, the demand is such that only a 23% reduction in congestion would be feasible.
To weaken the conclusion in light of the above reasoning, we need an answer choice that tells us the new highway linking the downtown business district with the East Canton suburbs will not solve the traffic congestion problem. Let's check each answer choice and understand if it weakens this conclusion or not:
(A) A year is insufficient time to judge the viability of the subway.
This weakens the Premise "New subway line has been deemed insufficient for satisfying demand", not the conclusion. We can't question the premise as we have to take it as a fact given to us in the argument, so we'll eliminate A.
(B) A ride-sharing scheme has been successfully operating for more than a year.
There's a ride-sharing scheme that operates successfully, okay, but does it do anything to alleviate the traffic congestion problem? We don't know. Eliminate B
(C) The business district suffers from a chronic shortage of parking spaces.
If the business district suffers from a shortage of parking spaces, would the new highway help? The new highway will alleviate traffic based on the assumption that once it gets built, people will use it, ie they'll start driving to the business district vs taking the subway line. But if the parking problem persists, even if you build the new highway, people don't have a space to park their vehicles, they will likely still prefer the subway line. So the new highway doesn't solve the problem. Let's keep C
(D) Some residents in the business district are opposed to the scheme.
"Some" residents oppose the scheme, how many? Even if they do, how does it impact if it solves the problem or not? Eliminate D.
(E) The cost of the proposed highway would severely strain the city’s budget.
Cost of the proposed solution and it's implication on city's budget are irrelevant to the argument here, eliminate E.
C seems to most weaken the argument.
You're right, it may appear out of scope at first when the argument talks about congestion and not parking spaces. You're also correct that drawing a parallel between the two seems a stretch, but no other options come anywhere close to weakening the argument the way (C) does.
