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 the 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
The repair of airports is not appropriate to fit in as evidence to oppose the because it supports the expansion of existing airports rather than opposing it.
Option B - Correct
This option is concrete enough as evidence to oppose the plan because high-speed trains occupy more passengers than planes and also the method of high-speed train operation is liable to pollute the air than that of planes.
Option C - Incorrect
This option does not conform with the argument in any way because no information was given about passengers.
Option D - Incorrect
This claim is not relevant to the argument. Therefore, it can be used as a piece of evidence of the objection to the plan.
Option E - Incorrect
We are not concerned about the proportion of passengers that take short-distance flights as this doesn't serve as evidence of the objection to the plan.
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
The repair of airports is not appropriate to fit in as evidence to oppose the because it supports the expansion of existing airports rather than opposing it.
Option B - Correct
This option is concrete enough as evidence to oppose the plan because high-speed trains occupy more passengers than planes and also the method of high-speed train operation is liable to pollute the air than that of planes.
Option C - Incorrect
This option does not conform with the argument in any way because no information was given about passengers.
Option D - Incorrect
This claim is not relevant to the argument. Therefore, it can be used as a piece of evidence of the objection to the plan.
Option E - Incorrect
We are not concerned about the proportion of passengers that take short-distance flights as this doesn't serve as evidence of the objection to the plan.
