The citys public transportation system should be removed from the

Question

The city’s public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government, which finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service. If public transportation were handled by a private firm, profits would be vigorously pursued, thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds.

The statements above best support the conclusion that

(A) the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry

(B) political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs

(C) private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs

(D) the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm

(E) the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs

sahilbhatia · Accepted Answer

Must be True Question: Inference Question

Process of Elimination   :

A)  Out of Scope ,  we have no mention about the experience of any firm 
B)  Yes this is true cuz private firms can raise fares and can do cost saving, thereby earning profits , which municipal govts. couldn't do due to political reasons  .
C)  Earlier the govts covered up the costs of losses but now such a need would be finished. It has no link with the private firms receiving the compensation .  Therefore, its not true.
D) Out of scope,  No mention of the public   No such Inference about such a public trend possible. 
E)  No such inference possible

NCRanjan · Answer

the essence of conclusion is that Private firms will vigorously pursue the profits .

Option B states just that , Nothing will stop private firms from pursuing profits

souvonik2k · Answer

This is an Inference question. The correct answer choice must be 100% true.

(A) the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry - Irrelevant.

(B) political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs - The last sentence of the argument says that 'thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds'. So, this answer choice can be inferred.

(C) private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs - Not stated in argument.

(D) the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm - May or may not be true.

(E) the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs - Not stated in argument.

Answer B.

Skywalker18 · Answer

The city’s public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government, which finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service. If public transportation were handled by a private firm, profits would be vigorously pursued, thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds.

Type - inference

(A) the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry - Incorrect - This may be true in real life, but we can't say this with certainity

(B) political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs - Correct - Municipal government failed to profitably operate city’s public transportation because of political considerations, but the argument assumes that private firms would be able to pursue profits. So, we can infer that political consideration would no longer be a factor for private firms.

(C) private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs - Out of scope

(D) the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm - Out of scope - no discussion on public approval of cost-cutting

(E) the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs - Irrelvant

Answer B

Shrey9 · Answer

Is the highlighted word "politically" in the passage, is a reason to pick B ? because, I don't see anywhere mentioned, that the political considerations are stalling the profits or operating costs

liaoliao · Answer

at first , I think choice b make too much inference , then I found the word POLITICALLY in the stimulus

Montyyy95 · Answer

HI VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
could you please explain this question?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

I feel this is more of a "Find the Assumption" question rather than "Complete the Argument". The first sentence given can function as a clear conclusion: The city’s public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government.

The following can act as premises:

1) The municipal government finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service.
2) If public transportation were handled by a private firm:
 i) profits would be vigorously pursued.
 ii) there would be no necessity for covering operating costs with government funds.

Clearly, one very possible assumption here is that private firms would not be hamstrung by the same considerations as the municipal government.

(A) the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry  The experience, basis the given premises, does not impact the firms' ability to pursue profits. Eliminate.

(B) political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs  Correct. Consistent with our thinking above.

(C) private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs  Nothing in the passage supports this - in fact, the opposite is stated. Eliminate.

(D) the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm  Nothing in the passage supports this. Eliminate.

(E) the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs  This is irrelevant because we are considering the scenario of private firms operating the transportation, not the municipal government. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

tinbq · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja ,
Please help with this question.

naul · Answer

I felt this was more like finding conclusion though. Actually, I cannot quite grasp the difference between conclusion vs inference. I would appreciate if someone can thoroughly distinguish what to look for conclusion problems vs inference problems.

mSKR · Answer

Conclsuion: something is derived from premises. Something can not be argued.
Example: If A leads to B and B leads to C.
A can lead to C through B.( you can not argue on this)
Inference: Something that can not be dervied directly but tends to indicate some meaning.
A may lead to C ( it indicates A can lead to C but we can not 100% guarantee , maybe it can lead to C unless B is in between, or there could be other possibiliites)
may : makes it open to interpret

SatvikVedala · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja

The Question sounds like an assumption question to me

Conclusion already exists in the statement "If public transportation were handled by a private firm, profits would be vigorously pursued, thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds".

But then, there is a missing link between conclusion & "The city’s public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government, which finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service".

Which can be linked by option a or option b

Kindly Clarify

GMATNinja · Answer

We aren't asked to find an assumption required for a conclusion in the passage. Instead, we have to accept everything in the passage and pick something that can be concluded BASED ON what's in the passage.

We are GIVEN that profits would be vigorously pursued by a private firm and that a private firm would not need government funding to cover operating costs. From that, we can conclude that the government will stay out of it and that political considerations will not impact the pursuit of profits, so (B) works.

Regarding choice (A), there's no evidence in the passage one way or the other. Maybe the private firm has experience in the transportation industry and maybe not, and we aren't given any reason to believe that experience is necessary.

(A) isn't supported by the passage, so it has to be eliminated.

I hope that helps!

GMAT1034 · Answer

Can someone explain how is this an Inference question and not Conclusion question, the wording of the q stem looks like Finding the Conclusion questions. How would it be worded if this were actually a conclusion question, cant grasp the difference ! 
 KarishmaB .  MartyMurray

MartyMurray · Answer

This question is a Conclusion question.

I've requested a correction of the tag.

The citys public transportation system should be removed from the

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The citys public transportation system should be removed from the

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