CR Weaken - Tristate Authority

This is pretty simple argument. You need to break down the argument and find the conclusion.

Conclusion: Financing thro' drivers is unfair as they do not have any benefit.
To weaken the above conclusion we have say that there is some benefits which drivers gain by financing the bridge.
D clears states one reason which will benefit the drivers.

C is a shell game. They have modified one word to make it incorrect. Improvements is not the same as Maintenance and test makers have cleverly placed it right above the right AO so that test takers select C and move on the next question without even considering D and E. This is a trap. I think you fell for this trap. It is good practice to consider all the five options before choosing the correct one.

The correct answer should be D. Let me explain:

The question asks for something that helps the authority to refute the argument that the toll increase is fair. The reason cited is that "would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit. " If we can show that there is a benefit, that would weaken the argument. Let's check.

(A) Even with the proposed toll increase, the average bridge toll in the tristate region would remain less than the tolls charged in neighboring states.
There is no reason for drivers to benefit from this. NO.

(B) Any attempt to finance the improvements by raising rail fares would result in a decrease in ridership and so would be self-defeating.
This is opposite of what the authorities said earlier. NO.

(C) Automobile commuters benefit from well-maintained bridges, and in the tristate region bridge maintenance is funded out of general income tax revenues to which both automobile and rail commuters contribute.
Ok, so, part of income taxes are used for bridge maintenance. There is nothing in the CR paragraph that says that increasing rail commuters will increase tax revenues. Even if that were to be true, we still don't know whether the increase will be used for maintaining bridges or some other social program. NO.

(D) The roads along the route served by the rail line are highly congested and drivers benefit when commuters are diverted from congested roadways to mass transit.
YES. Clearly, if some of the commuters leave the road for the rail, the drivers will benefit from less congestion. This is what we were looking for anyway (something that shows even a 0.01% benefit).

(E) The only alternative way of funding the proposed improvements now being considered is through a regional income tax surcharge, which would affect automobile commuters and rail commuters alike.
Again, even if this is true, it doesn't show how drivers benefit from paying tolls rather than income tax surcharge. Furthermore, the income tax surcharge might be actually less than the tolls. who knows? NO.


Let me know if this helps