|
|
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.
27 Jul 2020, 18:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company's projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway station"
Discuss how well reasoned …
In this argument, the author recommends that the transit company reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations to promote the shuttle buses ridership for commuter. To substantiate this conclusion, the author cites statistics showing that the commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, nevertheless the commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume.
At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but close scrutiny reveals that the line of reasoning employed is invalid and hence the conclusion is misleading due to several critical logic flaws.
In short, the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s claim, and lack of credibility in reasoning makes the conclusion problematic.
First, the author fails to consider various causes of below-the-projected-volume of the shuttle buses. For instance, there is a possibility that either most of commuter dwells near the new subway station, most of commuter tends to carry heavy briefcase, causing distress to commuter, or simply commuter doesn’t like the quality of the bus. Therefore, if the transit company reduces the bus fare, it will lose profit because of unchanged ridership. Or if the transit company increases the price of parking at the subway station, the commuter will find no advantage of using the new subway train, driving directly to the work.
Second, the author neglect to provide clear evidence of two projected numbers.
The author cites that the number of commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, whereas the number of commuter use of the shuttle buses is below the projected volume. However, this evidence is weak to support his conclusion. For example, there is a possibility that the transit company projected much higher volume of bus ridership than of new subway train ridership. Without ruling out this possibility, the author’s conclusion could not be valid.
To sum up, the author fails to provide adequate justification for this argument.
Therefore, to make the conclusion of the argument more logically convincing, the author should include the above-mentioned assumptions as additional evidence. If so, the argument would be much more persuasive.
Thank you for taking time to read this and thank you again to those who evaluate my AWA !
Discuss how well reasoned …
In this argument, the author recommends that the transit company reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations to promote the shuttle buses ridership for commuter. To substantiate this conclusion, the author cites statistics showing that the commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, nevertheless the commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume.
At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but close scrutiny reveals that the line of reasoning employed is invalid and hence the conclusion is misleading due to several critical logic flaws.
In short, the analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s claim, and lack of credibility in reasoning makes the conclusion problematic.
First, the author fails to consider various causes of below-the-projected-volume of the shuttle buses. For instance, there is a possibility that either most of commuter dwells near the new subway station, most of commuter tends to carry heavy briefcase, causing distress to commuter, or simply commuter doesn’t like the quality of the bus. Therefore, if the transit company reduces the bus fare, it will lose profit because of unchanged ridership. Or if the transit company increases the price of parking at the subway station, the commuter will find no advantage of using the new subway train, driving directly to the work.
Second, the author neglect to provide clear evidence of two projected numbers.
The author cites that the number of commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company’s projections, whereas the number of commuter use of the shuttle buses is below the projected volume. However, this evidence is weak to support his conclusion. For example, there is a possibility that the transit company projected much higher volume of bus ridership than of new subway train ridership. Without ruling out this possibility, the author’s conclusion could not be valid.
To sum up, the author fails to provide adequate justification for this argument.
Therefore, to make the conclusion of the argument more logically convincing, the author should include the above-mentioned assumptions as additional evidence. If so, the argument would be much more persuasive.
Thank you for taking time to read this and thank you again to those who evaluate my AWA !
Moderator:
