A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congesti

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and the pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart. This plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.

Which of the following, if true, could opponents of the plan most appropriately cite as a piece of evidence for their objection to the plan?


A. In order to maintain current levels of airport congestion, significant repairs of airports must be undertaken.

B. The high-speed trains that would be used as part of such plan cause more pollution per passenger than do planes.

C. The majority of passengers departing from rural airports are flying to destinations in cities over 800 kilometers away.

D. Many new airports are being built in areas that are not yet served by high-speed train service.

E. A large proportion of air passengers in China take short-distance flights.

OA B

Source: Veritas Prep
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2623
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Montreal
Thanked: 1090 times
Followed by:355 members
GMAT Score:780

by Ian Stewart » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:05 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

The argument says, in part, "let's reduce pollution by replacing planes with trains". That's not a good proposal if trains pollute more than planes, so B is clearly one good answer here.

But this question shares a problematic feature with many prep company questions: it's not clear which of the proposal's goals is most important, nor on what basis its opponents are objecting to it. The argument justifies its proposal because it would "cost far less" than airport expansion, because it would relieve "airport congestion", and because it would reduce air pollution. But if answer D is true, and many new airports are being built in areas currently without trains (which is most areas, since as the stem tells us, trains connecting major cities don't exist right now), that suggests an alternative: do nothing, The new airports alone might relieve the airport congestion, and it clearly costs less to only build those airports, which according to D is happening no matter what else is done, than to both build the airports and either build trains or expand existing airports. So if the goal is to be "cost-effective", D suggests a reason not to go ahead with the train proposal.

I'd still consider B the 'best' answer to the question, but D is too good an answer to be wrong on a real GMAT CR question. In real GMAT CR questions that propose a policy, there is usually one clear goal of the policy, and not three, which makes it easier to tell what kind of answer you're looking for.
For online GMAT math tutoring, or to buy my higher-level Quant books and problem sets, contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

ianstewartgmat.com

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:10 am

by rishab0507 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:08 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

IMO B

We are looking to weaken the conclusion and we just need to find point which has some correlation with the premise in concept for air pollution,
Choice D and E effectively also weaken the solution but are mostly out of scope to be considered for answer.

B is best asnwer