Critical Reasoning

In recent years, the Holdsville Transportation Authority (HTA) has noted consistent delays on its Holdsville-River Valley bus, which runs from downtown Holdsville to the suburb of River Valley. In order to decrease the commuting time from Holdsville to River Valley, the HTA recently eliminated the James Street stop on the Holdsville-River Valley line. However, data show that the average commuting time from Holdsville to River Valley has actually increased since the elimination of the stop.

Which of the following provides the best explanation for the increase in commuting time from Holdsville to River Valley?

A) Almost all of the commuters who previously used the James Street stop now use the adjacent Green Street stop, causing overcrowding and excessive boarding and de-boarding delays at the Green Street stop.

B) A small percentage of the commuters who previously used the James Street stop now use alternate modes of transportation to commute from Holdsville to River Valley.

C) 90% of Holdsville-River Valley commuters were in favor of eliminating the James Street stop.

D) The Holdsville-River Valley bus route runs along River Street, which is always congested with heavy automobile traffic.

E) The Johnstown bus line, another line operated by the HTA, has also experienced an increase in average commuting time since eliminating a stop on its route.

why A why not B

j_shreyans wrote:why A why not B

A) This gives a clear explanation of why the elimination of the James Street stop slowed down the buses rather than speeding things up.

B) This could work either way. It could indicate that there is a reduction in commuters and so actually the buses should run faster because there are fewer people boarding. Alternatively, it could somehow indicate that there is only a small reduction in people boarding, which might indicate that those people are now using some other stop, one which would now be overcrowded. However, without the information given in choice A, even this second alternative does not really provide any clear reasoning underlying the increased travel times. So the information given in B is of little to no value in explaining why the travel times have increased.

HTA noted consistent delays.
In order to improve commuting time, it eliminated 2 stops.
Average commuting time increased.

We need to find a reason what may be causing commuting time to increase.

Answer choices -
A - Eliminating two stops causing overcrowding excessive boarding and de-boarding at adjacent stops, which may be taking more time than what is saved by eliminating 2 stops. It explains by commuting time increased.

B - A small % of commuters started using alternate modes of transportation. It does not explain why commuting time increased. Now number of commuters are less, it should take less time instead. NOT a CORRECT ANSWER.


Other choices you know why they are wrong.

Hope it helps.

Regards
B

Hi Marty,

I think this is a resolve the paradox question. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Choice A is very clear and direct in resolving the paradox present. So, can we risk avoid reading other answer choices in order to save time? There can't be a better paradox solver, right?

Thanks in advance.

~Binit.

binit wrote:Hi Marty,

I think this is a resolve the paradox question. Pls correct me if I am wrong. Choice A is very clear and direct in resolving the paradox present. So, can we risk avoid reading other answer choices in order to save time? There can't be a better paradox solver, right?

That's an interesting question Binit.

While I suppose you are right, and in this particular case it seems clear that A resolves the paradox so effectively that you could pretty much assume that the other answers just can't be as good, in practice I never do what you suggested.

Often I think I have a CR question figured out and then I read another answer choice and realize that I had missed something or not seen things clearly. This is even more likely to be the case with more difficult CR questions, in which the answer choices can be rather subtly different in validity, and while one answer can seem pretty good, another can be even better

Also, in general, I have found that scoring high on GMAT verbal can require a high degree of intensity, and my getting to V51 resulted partly from my learning to not mess around one bit. On other occasions I had looked at questions and at a certain point decided like "Ok, I did enough on this one." More intensity and a certain determination to get right answers made a difference.

So while taking that risk may make sense sometimes, really I much prefer to read all the choices all the time, juuuuust in case.

That's my call.

Marty Murray wrote: That's an interesting question Binit.

While I suppose you are right, and in this particular case it seems clear that A resolves the paradox so effectively that you could pretty much assume that the other answers just can't be as good, in practice I never do what you suggested.

Often I think I have a CR question figured out and then I read another answer choice and realize that I had missed something or not seen things clearly. This is even more likely to be the case with more difficult CR questions, in which the answer choices can be rather subtly different in validity, and while one answer can seem pretty good, another can be even better

Also, in general, I have found that scoring high on GMAT verbal can require a high degree of intensity, and my getting to V51 resulted partly from my learning to not mess around one bit. On other occasions I had looked at questions and at a certain point decided like "Ok, I did enough on this one." More intensity and a certain determination to get right answers made a difference.

So while taking that risk may make sense sometimes, really I much prefer to read all the choices all the time, juuuuust in case.

That's my call.

Wow.. that was so interesting and inspiring as well. So, to excel on the GMAT verbal I should focus on 'intensity' and not just time saving techniques. Thanks a ton, Marty.

~Binit.