The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network. Most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. The subway system is outdated and understaffed. The buses rarely run on schedule and their routes are inconvenient. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is an explanation of a current state of affairs; the second is a prediction based on that state of affairs.
B. The first is a statement of fact in opposition to the author's conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first emphasizes an existing problem; the second offers a proposal to solve that problem.
D. The first is information the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand; the second describes that situation.
E. The first is a justification of an impending problem; the second describes the consequences of that problem.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
City Government should invest surplus funds
This topic has expert replies
-
src_saurav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:27 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
theCEO
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 363
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:24 pm
- Thanked: 115 times
- Followed by:3 members
Most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and populationbinit wrote:The city government should invest surplus funds in improving the city's transportation network. Most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. The subway system is outdated and understaffed. The buses rarely run on schedule and their routes are inconvenient. If the city does not make changes soon to the network, it will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and, as a result, the city's financial health will be jeopardized.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first is an explanation of a current state of affairs; the second is a prediction based on that state of affairs.
B. The first is a statement of fact in opposition to the author's conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first emphasizes an existing problem; the second offers a proposal to solve that problem.
D. The first is information the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand; the second describes that situation.
E. The first is a justification of an impending problem; the second describes the consequences of that problem.
This doesn't oppose or support the author's conclusion
This doesn't tell you that it is a problem
This just describe the cuurent situation
The use of the words if and will in the second boldface suggest a prediction.
Based on this analysis, the answer = a
-
Nick0203
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:47 pm
- Followed by:2 members
The conclusion of the argument is that the city will see many of its prized industries relocate to more convenient cities and the city's financial health will be jeopardized if the city does not make changes soon to the transportation network. This is also the second bolded sentence. The first bolded sentence states that most of the network was put in place at a time when the city was much smaller in both area and population. We need to find a choice that correctly describes both of these bolded statements.
(A) CORRECT. This choice states that the first statement is an explanation of a current state of affairs. This explanation is consistent with the passage. The answer choice goes on to describe the second bolded statement as a prediction based on that state of affairs. This is also consistent with the passage: the second bolded statement predicts what will happen as a result of the inadequacy of the current transportation network.
(B) The first statement is indeed a statement of fact, but the author cites it in order to bolster his or her claim; thus the statement is not in opposition to the conclusion. The second statement is the conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first statement does not "emphasize an existing problem" but rather explains that existing problem (of an overtaxed subway). Moreover, the second statement does not "offer a proposal to solve that problem" but rather warns of what will happen if the problem is not solved.
(D) The first statement arguably presents information that "the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand"; however, the second statement does not describe that situation, but rather proposes a hypothetical outcome in the future.
(E) The first statement is not really "justification" (a term that implies approval on the part of the author) but rather an "explanation"; nor does it refer to an "impending problem" but rather an existing problem. Also, the second statement does not describe "consequences" exactly but rather "potential consequences" if the problem is left unchecked
(A) CORRECT. This choice states that the first statement is an explanation of a current state of affairs. This explanation is consistent with the passage. The answer choice goes on to describe the second bolded statement as a prediction based on that state of affairs. This is also consistent with the passage: the second bolded statement predicts what will happen as a result of the inadequacy of the current transportation network.
(B) The first statement is indeed a statement of fact, but the author cites it in order to bolster his or her claim; thus the statement is not in opposition to the conclusion. The second statement is the conclusion of the argument.
(C) The first statement does not "emphasize an existing problem" but rather explains that existing problem (of an overtaxed subway). Moreover, the second statement does not "offer a proposal to solve that problem" but rather warns of what will happen if the problem is not solved.
(D) The first statement arguably presents information that "the author suggests has been overlooked in the situation at hand"; however, the second statement does not describe that situation, but rather proposes a hypothetical outcome in the future.
(E) The first statement is not really "justification" (a term that implies approval on the part of the author) but rather an "explanation"; nor does it refer to an "impending problem" but rather an existing problem. Also, the second statement does not describe "consequences" exactly but rather "potential consequences" if the problem is left unchecked
