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
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
A cost-effective solution to the problem of airport
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Premise: The cost-effective solution to the problem of airport congestion and pollution it causes is to provide high-speed train service between major cities in China, lying 300 to 800 kilometers apart.
Conclusion: The plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.
Option A - Incorrect:
This is not enough for the opposition to use as a piece of evidence in objecting to the plans because their intent is more on the expansion of existing airports and not significant repairing airports.
Option B - Correct:
In a way to discredit the proposed plan by the opposition, high-speed trains solution plan would cause more pollution per passenger than planes will do because of the large number of occupants a train can carry as compared to planes. Thereby, enabling the passengers to direct contact with pollution that can pose more hazards to their health. This evidence holds a strong basis to disapprove the proposed plan. Hence, this option is correct.
Option C - Incorrect:
This claim is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Option D - Incorrect:
This claim cannot hold any strong basis to be used as evidence by the opposition as it holds no fact and doesn't sound logical enough.
Option E - Incorrect:
We cannot validate this claim from the passage as there is no such information to back it up.
Conclusion: The plan would cost far less than the expansion of existing airports and would reduce the number of airplanes clogging airports and polluting the air.
Option A - Incorrect:
This is not enough for the opposition to use as a piece of evidence in objecting to the plans because their intent is more on the expansion of existing airports and not significant repairing airports.
Option B - Correct:
In a way to discredit the proposed plan by the opposition, high-speed trains solution plan would cause more pollution per passenger than planes will do because of the large number of occupants a train can carry as compared to planes. Thereby, enabling the passengers to direct contact with pollution that can pose more hazards to their health. This evidence holds a strong basis to disapprove the proposed plan. Hence, this option is correct.
Option C - Incorrect:
This claim is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Option D - Incorrect:
This claim cannot hold any strong basis to be used as evidence by the opposition as it holds no fact and doesn't sound logical enough.
Option E - Incorrect:
We cannot validate this claim from the passage as there is no such information to back it up.
