CR- Paradox - Hard to digest

[gauravgundal]

Source: Princeton Review book

Passenger boardings on trains almost doubled between 1985 and 1995, yet the actual number of trips made by passengers increased by only 38 percent over the same period. The reason for this discrepancy is that at least two boardings are counted when a passenger must take more than one train trip to get to the final destination of his or her trip.

Which of the following, if true, best helps explain why the increase in boardings exceeded the increase in the number of train passengers between 1985 and 1995?

A. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of train stations increased dramatically.
B. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of train lines decreased significantly.
C. Between 1985 and 1995, the proportion of train trips requiring passengers to change trains en route to their final
destinations increased significantly.
D. The proportion of business travelers using trains increased significantly between 1985 and 1995 relative to the
proportion of pleasure travelers.
E. The average seating capacity of passenger trains increased significantly between 1985 and 1995.


[spoiler]IMO: OA: C[/spoiler]

Using POE, I happen to get the correct answer,but I am finding this argument little bi hard to understand and justify myself to agree with answer choice C.

I don't understand that if the proportion of train trips requiring passengers to change trains increased significantly

how does the above statement help in explaining the paradox between the boarding of train and number of trip.

Can anyone help me to understand the reason behind the correct answer ? Any numerical explanation is welcomed .

[mundasingh123]

Using POE, I happen to get the correct answer,but I am finding this argument little bi hard to understand and justify myself to agree with answer choice C.

I don't understand that if the proportion of train trips requiring passengers to change trains increased significantly

how does the above statement help in explaining the paradox between the boarding of train and number of trip.

Can anyone help me to understand the reason behind the correct answer ? Any numerical explanation is welcomed .

Hi
For example I need to go to Station A from Station B .There is only a direct line from B to C On the way between B and C there is a station D which is connected to A.
So I buy a ticket from B to C ie 1 boarding
On the way I get down at D and buy a ticket from D to A ie 1 Boarding
So that means 2 boardings ( because there are 2 trips ,B to D,D to A) but there is only 1 passenger.
This is what Choice C says the lines that require a Change of Train have Increased .

[lunarpower]

the key to the problem is in this line:

at least two boardings are counted when a passenger must take more than one train trip to get to the final destination of his or her trip.

this quote uses unnecessarily circuitous language, but its point is fairly clear: if a trip has multiple parts, then one "boarding" is counted for each part of the trip -- even though all of those boardings are made by the same passenger.

this is the only way described in the passage for the number of boardings to exceed the number of passengers -- i.e., if passengers are taking trips that involve multiple boardings. that would be answer choice (c).

you didn't indicate which other answer you wanted to pick; which other answer(s) tempted you?

[GMATMadeEasy]

@Ron: how about option E ?

[lunarpower]

@Ron: how about option E ?

the question is about why one rate of increase was faster than another rate of increase.

choice (e) -- an increased capacity for the trains themselves -- might explain why there were increases in the first place, but it has nothing to do with why one rate of increase would be larger than the other.

also note that the information in the passage itself strongly points to multi-part journeys as the reason -- see the reasoning in my post above.