Critical Reasoning

a reply by cesar82 on another site.i found it really help full.


It's clearly A, bcoz..

A. most people in favor of expanding the rail system reported less congestion during their highway commute as the primary benefit they would experience

So! These motorists think that adding a railway will make other people take trains more so that the roads are free for them.. however if 80% of the people who travel by road feel like that then who will travel by train?! I find it pretty funny actually

B. of the less than 20 percent of residents not counted as favoring the expansion, about half claimed to have no opinion one way or the other
Not imp, as 80% still feel that there should be rail

C. the twice-daily periods of peak congestion caused by people commuting in cars have grown from about an hour each to almost two and a half hours each in the past 20 years
This is opposite to what is asked

D. expanding the commuter rail system will require the construction of dozens of miles of new railbed
not relavant, as we are talking abt easing congestion

E. the proposed expansion to the commuter rail system will make it possible for some people who both live and work at suburban locations to commute by rail
opposite to what is asked

A
It tells us that the most people who favor the proposal also cite that they face less congestion during their daily commute as the primary benefit they would experience

B - Irrelevant. It refers to the minority who did not vote in favor of the proposal and their opinion is irrelevant to the conclusion

C - Actually strengthens the conclusion. If the commute time has increased in the last 20 years then the proposed rail plan will achieve its goal of alleviating congestion

D - Irrelevant.

E - Also strengthens the conclusion

Hi,

Could someone help to explain this one, as I have some doubt about the OA, that is, why could not we understand option A as, the people reporting less congestion during their highway commute as the primary benefit they would experience will switch to use rail system rather than to continue using their cars? I mean, such switch can truly benefit them by eliminating/reducing the congestion they otherwise have to face if continuing using their cars, right? So why could not we understand this option in such another way?

Thanks for your response

thuyduong91vnu wrote:Hi,

Could someone help to explain this one, as I have some doubt about the OA, that is, why could not we understand option A as, the people reporting less congestion during their highway commute as the primary benefit they would experience will switch to use rail system rather than to continue using their cars? I mean, such switch can truly benefit them by eliminating/reducing the congestion they otherwise have to face if continuing using their cars, right? So why could not we understand this option in such another way?

Thanks for your response

The prompt says "A recent poll found that over 80 percent of the residents of Nalmed Province favored a massive expansion of the commuter rail system".

OK, so the poll indicates that 80% are in favor of the expansion of the rail system.

Now A says "most people in favor of expanding the rail system reported less congestion during their highway commute as the primary benefit they would experience."

So most of 80% of the residents, which is basically MOST OF THE RESIDENTS, are excited about the rail system because they feel that when they ARE DRIVING there will be less congestion.

The implication is that while most of the residents are in favor of the system, MOST OF THEM PLAN TO CONTINUE DRIVING rather than to use the rail system. If most people continue driving, the rail system will not ease congestion, at least not by very much, and so the plan will not be successful.

Hi Marty Murray,

Thanks for your explanation. While I do agree that it is very reasonable, I still can not understand why could not we interpret it in another way, though

I mean, when I first read it, I interpreted it in 2 ways:

(1) The meaning you gave above, which is Most of the residents are excited about the expansion of the commuter rail system because they feel that when they are driving there will be less congestion
and
(2) Most of the residents are excited about the expansion of the commuter rail system because they feel that it will give them more chances to switch from using their private vehicles to using rail system, which could help to reduce/eliminate the congestion they may have to face if continuing using their private vehicles.

Is the 2nd interpretion is not acceptable/reasonable in this context?

Thanks for your help

thuyduong91vnu wrote:Hi Marty Murray,

Thanks for your explanation. While I do agree that it is very reasonable, I still can not understand why could not we interpret it in another way, though

I mean, when I first read it, I interpreted it in 2 ways:

(1) The meaning you gave above, which is Most of the residents are excited about the expansion of the commuter rail system because they feel that when they are driving there will be less congestion
and
(2) Most of the residents are excited about the expansion of the commuter rail system because they feel that it will give them more chances to switch from using their private vehicles to using rail system, which could help to reduce/eliminate the congestion they may have to face if continuing using their private vehicles.

Is the 2nd interpretion is not acceptable/reasonable in this context?

Thanks for your help

Your second interpretation is too twisted or too much of a stretch. Nowhere does A say that the respondents said that they will ever use the train, and so you have added to the answer choice something that is not logically and clearly implied by what the answer choice says. While often in order to get the right answers to CR questions one has to add to the answer choices, you will not get them right if you add things that are not logically and clearly implied by what the answer choices say.

Further, what A says is that the respondents "reported less congestion during their highway commute as the primary benefit they would experience."

That the respondents expect reduced congestion as the "primary benefit", implies that any benefits they may get in taking the train are secondary to the reduced congestion they would experience. That implies that even after the train is available they plan to use the highways as their primary means of traveling. If they were going to primarily use the train, then the primary benefits that they expect to get from the train would be related to train travel itself.

Also, a "commute" is generally considered a regularly occurring a round trip to a place of work or other location. So the implication of A is that most of the respondents expect to regularly use the highways.

Completely understand, thank you so much!