Critical Reasoning

A business analysis of the Appenian railroad system divided its long-distance passenger routes into two categories: rural routes and interurban routes. The analysis found that, unlike the interurban routes, few rural routes carried a high enough passenger volume to be profitable. Closing unprofitable rural routes, however, will not necessarily enhance the profitability of the whole system, since _____________________

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

(A) A large part of the passenger volume on interurban routes is accounted for by passengers who begin or end their journeys on rural routes

(B) within the last two decades several of the least used rural routes have been closed and their passenger services have been replaced by buses

(C) the rural routes were all originally constructed at least one hundred years ago, whereas some of the interurban routes were constructed recently
for new high-speed express trains

(D) not all of Appenia's large cities are equally well served by interurban railroad services

(E) the greatest passenger volume, relative to the routes' capacity, is not on either category of long-distance routes but is on suburban commuter routes

OA:A

Source: OG Verbal 2016,CR Qs.3

P.S: I'm stuck between [spoiler]A & B[/spoiler]. Though A appears more convincing, not able to understand how B is wrong -- B also seems to STRENGTHEN the conclusion, I guess!
@Verbal Experts - please share your feedback.

RBBmba@2014 wrote:A business analysis of the Appenian railroad system divided its long-distance passenger routes into two categories: rural routes and interurban routes. The analysis found that, unlike the interurban routes, few rural routes carried a high enough passenger volume to be profitable. Closing unprofitable rural routes, however, will not necessarily enhance the profitability of the whole system, since _____________________

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

(A) A large part of the passenger volume on interurban routes is accounted for by passengers who begin or end their journeys on rural routes

(B) within the last two decades several of the least used rural routes have been closed and their passenger services have been replaced by buses

(C) the rural routes were all originally constructed at least one hundred years ago, whereas some of the interurban routes were constructed recently
for new high-speed express trains

(D) not all of Appenia's large cities are equally well served by interurban railroad services

(E) the greatest passenger volume, relative to the routes' capacity, is not on either category of long-distance routes but is on suburban commuter routes

OA:A

Source: OG Verbal 2016,CR Qs.3

P.S: I'm stuck between [spoiler]A & B[/spoiler]. Though A appears more convincing, not able to understand how B is wrong -- B also seems to STRENGTHEN the conclusion, I guess!
@Verbal Experts - please share your feedback.

To support the conclusion that CLOSING UNPROFITABLE RURAL ROUTES will not enhance the profitability of the whole system, the correct answer choice must show that these routes provide some BENEFIT.

A: A large part of the passenger volume on interurban routes is accounted for by passengers who begin or end their journeys on rural routes.
In helping interurban passengers begin and end their journeys, the unprofitable rural routes provide a clear benefit, STRENGTHENING the conclusion that the profitability of the whole system will NOT be enhanced by the closing of these rural routes.

The correct answer is A.

B: Within the last two decades several of the least used rural routes have been closed and their passenger services have been replaced by buses.
Here, no information is given about the profitability of the whole system.
As a result, an opponent of the argument could state the following:
Since the closing of these least used rural routes, profits for the rail system have increased 5%.
Clearly, the closing of any remaining rural routes would ENHANCE the profitability of the whole system, WEAKENING the conclusion of the passage above.
Eliminate B.

Hi GMATGuruNY,
Not getting this straight.

As for A: How would we know that the rural routes mentioned in this option are actually some of those unprofitable ones (which are to be closed per the ARGUMENT) ? The rural routes mentioned in this option could be the profitable ones as well..isn't it ?

As for B: My thought was -- even after closing several least used rural routes for last two decades, it's found that profitability of the whole system has NOT improved as still unprofitable rural routes exist.
So, if performing an action X doesn't help to get the desired result EARLIER, then how performing similar kind of action would help to get the same intended result NOW ? Hence, B seems to STRENGTHEN the conclusion that closing unprofitable rural routes [FURTHER] will NOT necessarily enhance the profitability of the whole system.

(And why we should EVEN consider the profitability of the bus routes that replace these closed rural routes because our ARGUMENT is based upon the profitability of the railroad system ONLY!)

Where I'm getting this wrong ? Please help!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:even after closing several least used rural routes for last two decades, it's found that profitability of the whole system has NOT improved.

Do not make stuff up.
The portion in red is not mentioned anywhere in the passage or in answer choice B.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:even after closing several least used rural routes for last two decades, it's found that profitability of the whole system has NOT improved.

Do not make stuff up.
The portion in red is not mentioned anywhere in the passage or in answer choice B.

TRUE.
Actually I thought that we were getting *that* PERCEPTION as still unprofitable rural routes exist (and it's NOT a MUST BE TRUE CR/ASSUMPTION CR)!

Btw, could you please share your feedback on the following concerns?

As for B:why we should EVEN consider the profitability of the bus routes that replace these closed rural routes because our ARGUMENT is based upon the profitability of the railroad system ONLY!
So,from this perspective how EXACTLY Option B WEAKENS the conclusion ?

As for A: How would we know that the rural routes mentioned in this option are actually some of those unprofitable ones (which are to be closed per the ARGUMENT) ? The rural routes mentioned in this option could be the profitable ones as well..isn't it ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:even after closing several least used rural routes for last two decades, it's found that profitability of the whole system has NOT improved.

Do not make stuff up.
The portion in red is not mentioned anywhere in the passage or in answer choice B.

TRUE.
Actually I thought that we were getting *that* PERCEPTION as still unprofitable rural routes exist (and it's NOT a MUST BE TRUE CR/ASSUMPTION CR)!

It is not a perception but a PREMISE that unprofitable rural routes still exist.
But these routes represent only a PORTION of the whole system.
The rest of the system might be VERY profitable.
The result:
Significant profit for the system as a whole.

As for B:why we should EVEN consider the profitability of the bus routes that replace these closed rural routes

The profitability of the bus routes is irrelevant.
I mentioned this issue for one reason only:
I thought you might have considered it in your justification for B.

As for A: How would we know that the rural routes mentioned in this option are actually some of those unprofitable ones (which are to be closed per the ARGUMENT) ? The rural routes mentioned in this option could be the profitable ones as well..isn't it ?

Don't overthink this.
The OA is correct because the following statement makes perfect sense:
Since a large part of the passenger volume on interurban routes is accounted for by passengers who begin or end their journeys on rural routes, closing unprofitable rural routes will not necessarily enhance the profitability of the whole system.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote: Actually I thought that we were getting *that* PERCEPTION as still unprofitable rural routes exist (and it's NOT a MUST BE TRUE CR/ASSUMPTION CR)!

It is not a perception but a PREMISE that unprofitable rural routes still exist.
But these routes represent only a PORTION of the whole system.
The rest of the system might be VERY profitable.
The result:
Significant profit for the system as a whole.

Really having tough time to comprehend why B is wrong!

I wanted to mean that even after closing several least used rural routes for last two decades PERCEPTION is such that profitability of the whole system has NOT LIKELY improved (and therefore, the ARGUMENT mentions about the enhancement of the profitability of the whole system in its CONCLUSION) because unprofitable rural routes STILL exist.

Now, the ARGUMENT says "few rural routes carried a high enough passenger volume to be profitable" -- so from these info can't we say that when closing several least used rural routes EARLIER didn't LIKELY help much to improve the profitability of the whole system, then how AGAIN closing the existing unprofitable rural routes will ACTUALLY enhance the profitability of the whole system ? (Thus,B seems to support the CONCLUSION)

Not getting this clear where I'm getting it wrong ? And how B weakens the CONCLUSION ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

As for A: How would we know that the rural routes mentioned in this option are actually some of those unprofitable ones (which are to be closed per the ARGUMENT) ? The rural routes mentioned in this option could be the profitable ones as well..isn't it ?

Don't overthink this.
The OA is correct because the following statement makes perfect sense:
Since a large part of the passenger volume on interurban routes is accounted for by passengers who begin or end their journeys on rural routes, closing unprofitable rural routes will not necessarily enhance the profitability of the whole system.

OK.
So the above explanation for the OA holds good because it's NOT a MUST BE TRUE/ASSUMPTION CR. Right ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Really having tough time to comprehend why B is wrong!

I wanted to mean that even after closing several least used rural routes for last two decades PERCEPTION is such that profitability of the whole system has NOT LIKELY improved (and therefore, the ARGUMENT mentions about the enhancement of the profitability of the whole system in its CONCLUSION) because unprofitable rural routes STILL exist.

Now, the ARGUMENT says "few rural routes carried a high enough passenger volume to be profitable" -- so from these info can't we say that when closing several least used rural routes EARLIER didn't LIKELY help much to improve the profitability of the whole system, then how AGAIN closing the existing unprofitable rural routes will ACTUALLY enhance the profitability of the whole system ? (Thus,B seems to support the CONCLUSION)

Not getting this clear where I'm getting it wrong ? And how B weakens the CONCLUSION ?

As I noted above:
Neither the passage nor answer choice B offers any information about the profitability of the WHOLE SYSTEM.
It is possible that -- despite the lack of passengers on rural routes -- the system as a whole is currently VERY PROFITABLE.

To clarify why B is incorrect, I've revised my original post as follows:
B: Within the last two decades several of the least used rural routes have been closed and their passenger services have been replaced by buses.
Here, no information is given about the profitability of the whole system.
As a result, an opponent of the argument could state the following:
Since the closing of these least used rural routes, profits for the rail system have increased 5%.
Clearly, the closing of any remaining rural routes would ENHANCE the profitability of the whole system, WEAKENING the conclusion of the passage above.
Eliminate B.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

As for A: How would we know that the rural routes mentioned in this option are actually some of those unprofitable ones (which are to be closed per the ARGUMENT) ? The rural routes mentioned in this option could be the profitable ones as well..isn't it ?

Don't overthink this.
The OA is correct because the following statement makes perfect sense:
Since a large part of the passenger volume on interurban routes is accounted for by passengers who begin or end their journeys on rural routes, closing unprofitable rural routes will not necessarily enhance the profitability of the whole system.

OK.
So the above explanation for the OA holds good because it's NOT a MUST BE TRUE/ASSUMPTION CR. Right ?

Yes.
This is a STRENGTHEN CR.
The OA strengthens the conclusion that closing unprofitable rural routes while not necessarily enhance the profitability of the whole system.

GMATGuruNY wrote:As I noted above:
Neither the passage nor answer choice B offers any information about the profitability of the WHOLE SYSTEM.
It is possible that -- despite the lack of passengers on rural routes -- the system as a whole is currently VERY PROFITABLE.
The question at hand is whether the system would be made LESS PROFITABLE or MORE PROFITABLE if rural routes were closed.

Got this...
Actually I got confused while (INCORRECTLY) trying to relate it to this OG CR - https://www.beatthegmat.com/a-certain-ma ... 86534.html.

However,as I understand now that the PRIME DIFFERENCES between these two CR are:
Problem at hand doesn't mention about the the profitability of the WHOLE SYSTEM neither in the passage nor in answer choice B (In fact, from the CONCLUSION it seems to appear that the the WHOLE SYSTEM is LIKELY ALREADY profitable -- that's why the ENHANCEMENT of profitability comes into play -- despite the existing unprofitable rural routes. So B,if at all, will WEAKEN the CONCLUSION!).

Whereas, the MAYOR CR I referred to here clearly mentions in the passage that city's traffic congestion EXIST, hence we need to find way to alleviate it. And to do so, my earlier logic holds good here in order to identify the OA -- if performing an action X doesn't help to get the desired result EARLIER, then performing similar kind of action would NOT LIKELY help to get the same intended result NOW.

Did I get the DIFFERENCES between these two CR correct ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:As I noted above:
Neither the passage nor answer choice B offers any information about the profitability of the WHOLE SYSTEM.
It is possible that -- despite the lack of passengers on rural routes -- the system as a whole is currently VERY PROFITABLE.
The question at hand is whether the system would be made LESS PROFITABLE or MORE PROFITABLE if rural routes were closed.

Got this...
Actually I got confused while (INCORRECTLY) trying to relate it to this OG CR - https://www.beatthegmat.com/a-certain-ma ... 86534.html.

However,as I understand now that the PRIME DIFFERENCES between these two CR are:
Problem at hand doesn't mention about the the profitability of the WHOLE SYSTEM neither in the passage nor in answer choice B (In fact, from the CONCLUSION it seems to appear that the the WHOLE SYSTEM is LIKELY ALREADY profitable -- that's why the ENHANCEMENT of profitability comes into play -- despite the existing unprofitable rural routes. So B,if at all, will WEAKEN the CONCLUSION!).

Whereas, the MAYOR CR I referred to here clearly mentions in the passage that city's traffic congestion EXIST, hence we need to find way to alleviate it. And to do so, my earlier logic holds good here in order to identify the OA -- if performing an action X doesn't help to get the desired result EARLIER, then performing similar kind of action would NOT LIKELY help to get the same intended result NOW.

Did I get the DIFFERENCES between these two CR correct ?

Received a PM asking me to comment. These questions are very different beasts. In the argument about closing unprofitable roads, the logic comes down to considering the effects of one part of an economic system on another. For example, if a video game manufacturer was taking a loss on consoles, but turning a large profit on the sale of games, it would obviously be flawed to claim that the manufacturer should phase out production of consoles, as the unprofitable portion of the business is necessary for the profitable portion of the business to function. How profitable the business is overall, is irrelevant.

The argument about the mayor's plan to assess a fee to get people to stop driving is about the motivation of drivers. (And RBB's analysis is valid: if paying $ in the past didn't dissuade drivers from taking their cars to work, then paying a little more $ in the future won't either.)

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote: Actually I got confused while (INCORRECTLY) trying to relate it to this OG CR - https://www.beatthegmat.com/a-certain-ma ... 86534.html.

However,as I understand now that the PRIME DIFFERENCES between these two CR are:
Problem at hand doesn't mention about the the profitability of the WHOLE SYSTEM neither in the passage nor in answer choice B (In fact, from the CONCLUSION it seems to appear that the the WHOLE SYSTEM is LIKELY ALREADY profitable -- that's why the ENHANCEMENT of profitability comes into play -- despite the existing unprofitable rural routes. So B,if at all, will WEAKEN the CONCLUSION!).

Whereas, the MAYOR CR I referred to here clearly mentions in the passage that city's traffic congestion EXIST, hence we need to find way to alleviate it. And to do so, my earlier logic holds good here in order to identify the OA -- if performing an action X doesn't help to get the desired result EARLIER, then performing similar kind of action would NOT LIKELY help to get the same intended result NOW.

Did I get the DIFFERENCES between these two CR correct ?

Received a PM asking me to comment. These questions are very different beasts. In the argument about closing unprofitable roads, the logic comes down to considering the effects of one part of an economic system on another. For example, if a video game manufacturer was taking a loss on consoles, but turning a large profit on the sale of games, it would obviously be flawed to claim that the manufacturer should phase out production of consoles, as the unprofitable portion of the business is necessary for the profitable portion of the business to function. How profitable the business is overall, is irrelevant.

The argument about the mayor's plan to assess a fee to get people to stop driving is about the motivation of drivers. (And RBB's analysis is valid: if paying $ in the past didn't dissuade drivers from taking their cars to work, then paying a little more $ in the future won't either.)

Hi Dave,
I can absolutely understand your analysis on how to approach these two CR.

Just couple of quick questions on top of what you've already mentioned about the approach to tackle the problem at hand (re the Appenian railroad system) -

1. Can we really say this "How profitable the business is overall, is irrelevant" -- completely out of scope here ? (here, my reasoning lies in the following question)

2. And apart from what you've mentioned already, please let me know whether the way I differentiated these two CR above is correct or not ? (please refer to my above quote under the tag "PRIME DIFFERENCES between these two CR")

Look forward to hear from you!

1. Can we really say this "How profitable the business is overall, is irrelevant" -- completely out of scope here ? (here, my reasoning lies in the following question)

Here's how I think about it:

Hypothetical Scenario 1
Profitable part of business yields $10 in profit.
Unprofitable part of business yields $10 in losses.
Net: Even

Here, assuming that the two parts of the businesses don't impact each other (an assumption we can't make, but play along,) it makes sense to shut down the unprofitable part of the business, as we'd go from breaking even to making $10 in profit.


Hypothetical Scenario 2
Profitable part of business yields $10 in profit.
Unprofitable part of business yields $1 in losses.
Net: $9 in profit.

Again, assuming that the two parts of the businesses don't impact each other, it makes sense to shut down the unprofitable part of the business, as we'd go from making $9 in profit to making $10 in profit.

So shutting down the unprofitable part of the business makes sense irrespective of whether we were earning an overall profit before the shut down. What we care about is whether shutting down the unprofitable part of the business will have unintended effects on the profitable part of the business.