-
karthmba011
- MBA Student
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 3:12 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- GMAT Score:690
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company's projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument above states that the transit company must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations, if it expects the commuters to ride the shuttle buses rather than drive to the subway. This argument is flawed because of the following faulty assumptions it makes.
First, and foremost, the author of the argument assumes that reducing the shuttle bus fares will compel the commuters to ride the shuttle buses, and thereby the transit company will attain its projected revenues. This assumption is flawed on the grounds that it fails to consider the other reasons the commuters might find driving to the subway as a preferable option. The reasons for this might also be the low frequency of the shuttle buses, overcrowding in these shuttle buses, and so on.
Secondly, the assumption that increasing the price of parking at the subway stations will compel the commuters to opt for the shuttle buses is flawed too. The commuters might be prefering to still opt for driving to the subway and bear the expensive parking fee, rather than ride the shuttle buses. The reasons for this can be such as the added convenience that one gets by commuting using one's own vehicle, the less time it takes to reach the destination compared to the shuttle buses, and so on.
Lastly, the author fails to consider other possibilities and instead assumes the two above mentioned assumptions to be the prime means by which the transit company can successfully achieve its objectives. There can be other means thought of by the author such as increasing the frequency of the shuttle buses, restricting overcrowding in these buses or making it possible for these buses to reach the subway in less time.
In sum, I would like to concur that the above stated argument is seriously flawed because of the ill-founded assumptions it makes. The author needs to evaluate further feasible options and provide concrete evidence to prove his argument to be valid.
"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company's projections. However, commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument above states that the transit company must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations, if it expects the commuters to ride the shuttle buses rather than drive to the subway. This argument is flawed because of the following faulty assumptions it makes.
First, and foremost, the author of the argument assumes that reducing the shuttle bus fares will compel the commuters to ride the shuttle buses, and thereby the transit company will attain its projected revenues. This assumption is flawed on the grounds that it fails to consider the other reasons the commuters might find driving to the subway as a preferable option. The reasons for this might also be the low frequency of the shuttle buses, overcrowding in these shuttle buses, and so on.
Secondly, the assumption that increasing the price of parking at the subway stations will compel the commuters to opt for the shuttle buses is flawed too. The commuters might be prefering to still opt for driving to the subway and bear the expensive parking fee, rather than ride the shuttle buses. The reasons for this can be such as the added convenience that one gets by commuting using one's own vehicle, the less time it takes to reach the destination compared to the shuttle buses, and so on.
Lastly, the author fails to consider other possibilities and instead assumes the two above mentioned assumptions to be the prime means by which the transit company can successfully achieve its objectives. There can be other means thought of by the author such as increasing the frequency of the shuttle buses, restricting overcrowding in these buses or making it possible for these buses to reach the subway in less time.
In sum, I would like to concur that the above stated argument is seriously flawed because of the ill-founded assumptions it makes. The author needs to evaluate further feasible options and provide concrete evidence to prove his argument to be valid.
