Critical Reasoning

Hutonian Government Official: Federal law requires truck drivers to take a long break after driving for ten hours, but truck drivers frequently do not comply. Since the public rest areas along our highways cannot accommodate all the drivers needing a break, we plan to build more rest areas to increase the rate of compliance.

Hutonian Business Representative: But if the parking lots around our businesses are considered, there are more than enough parking places.

Which of the following, if true about Hutonia, would provide a reason for persisting with the government official\'s plan despite the objection?

(A) Public parking areas are evenly distributed along the highways.

(B) Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour.

(C) In comparison to public rest areas, private parking lots near highways tend to be time-consuming for drivers to reach.

(D) Even when rest areas are available, some truck drivers park in places, such as highway access ramps, where their trucks are likely to cause accidents.

(E) Some public parking areas, particularly those on heavily traveled roads, are substantially larger than others.


Detailed reasoning please.

It took a lot of time for me to choose the correct answer.

hey this is fairly straight forward.

the question asks us to support the government official's statement.
government official states that the government plans to build more rest areas.
Premise: public rest areas along our highways cannot accommodate all the drivers.

To this the business rep (note: what the biz guy talks is about private parking ) states that there is enough parking space around their businesses.

now we need to provide a reason to show that though private parking spaces may exist, they will still not prove useful for the cause.

Now lets look at options:
(A) Public parking areas are evenly distributed along the highways. [ parking areas are evenly distributed along the highways does not prove that there is enough space to accomodate truck drivers. Eliminated!]

(B) Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour. [This is totally unrelated. we are not bothered about the cases when truck drivers will not comply. we looking at how to make arrangements for them to rest coz now such arrangement does not serve all. Eliminated!]

(C) In comparison to public rest areas, private parking lots near highways tend to be time-consuming for drivers to reach.[Bingo! this provides a reason why public construction is required even though private parking lots exist. My answer]

(D) Even when rest areas are available, some truck drivers park in places, such as highway access ramps, where their trucks are likely to cause accidents. [This again talks about when rest areas are available. our stimulus talks about a condition that rest areas currently cannot accomodate all truck drivers. also the reasons for accident is beyond the scope of the stimulus. Eliminated!]

(E) Some public parking areas, particularly those on heavily traveled roads, are substantially larger than others. [what applies to 'some' cannot be generalized to a larger picture. Remember 'some' can refer to 1 parking area also. just because 1 parking area is larger than the other, can the government base its decision on it? Eliminated!]

Hope this helps!

Agree with fibbonnaci . However it took me almost 2 mins to answer this q

yes i picked C too, i was kind of all over the place without a pencil and a paper to jot down argument - counter argument structure, but finally chose C.

is that the OA?

OA C

(A) Does not affect the proposal

(B) Truck drivers's compliance is not in question here - rule this out

(C) This is the right answer - Quicker way to answer or eliminate other answers in such questions is to check whether a certain answer choice compares both the sides mentioned in the argument/question stem

(D) Out of scope

(E) Out of scope

C is correct here, took me 2 min.

bhumika.k.shah wrote:Hutonian Government Official: Federal law requires truck drivers to take a long break after driving for ten hours, but truck drivers frequently do not comply. Since the public rest areas along our highways cannot accommodate all the drivers needing a break, we plan to build more rest areas to increase the rate of compliance.

Hutonian Business Representative: But if the parking lots around our businesses are considered, there are more than enough parking places.

Which of the following, if true about Hutonia, would provide a reason for persisting with the government official\'s plan despite the objection?

(A) Public parking areas are evenly distributed along the highways.

(B) Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour.

(C) In comparison to public rest areas, private parking lots near highways tend to be time-consuming for drivers to reach.

(D) Even when rest areas are available, some truck drivers park in places, such as highway access ramps, where their trucks are likely to cause accidents.

(E) Some public parking areas, particularly those on heavily traveled roads, are substantially larger than others.


Detailed reasoning please.

It took a lot of time for me to choose the correct answer.