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.
answer:
Above statement is about how commuter use of the shuttle buses can be increased. Author's main line of defense seems to be that high bus fare or cheap parking price are main reasons for reduced usage and if the transit company takes care of these issues then usage will increase. After deep analysis I think that the statement in incomplete and it is based on few assumptions. I wouldn't recommend taking any actions unless the required data is provided.
First of all, the author of the statement needs to provide actual numbers of projections of train and bus usage against actual numbers of usage. Actual figures will help a reader to understand the difference between projections and actual usage. If difference is very low, for example, if difference between actual usage and projections is less than 2 percent in both cases then it might be advisable to ignore the data completely. Moreover, the author should also prove that projection numbers are correct and those numbers are not based upon any wrong assumptions. For example, while calculating projections for bus usage, the transit company could have made few assumptions which are wrong and therefore, projections figures are skewed.
Secondly, the author should support with actual data that high bus fare or cheap parking price are real reasons behind the reduced usage of buses. There could be other reasons for lower usage. For example, lots of people stay near stations and they prefer walking to train stations or people don't prefer buses because buses are slow and as compared to cars they took long time to reach stations. In such cases reducing bus fare or raising parking space won't affect usage of buses.
Thirdly, it will be helpful if the statement puts forward reasons for which the transit company should seek more usage of buses. In fact, it could be that the transit company is not at all interested in usage of buses. For example, if the transit company is not expecting any profit at all from usage of buses then the transit company won't pay any attention to the author's suggestion. On the other hand, if the author puts forward benefits of increased bus usage then the transit company will take more interest in the author's suggestion.
Overall, I think it will be useful if the author does a survey among users of buses and trains to understand reasons of lower bus usage. The result of survey along with data mentioned in above paragraphs will validate accuracy of above statement. Entire data will also enable the transit company to take proper steps to increase usage of buses.
“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.
answer:
Above statement is about how commuter use of the shuttle buses can be increased. Author's main line of defense seems to be that high bus fare or cheap parking price are main reasons for reduced usage and if the transit company takes care of these issues then usage will increase. After deep analysis I think that the statement in incomplete and it is based on few assumptions. I wouldn't recommend taking any actions unless the required data is provided.
First of all, the author of the statement needs to provide actual numbers of projections of train and bus usage against actual numbers of usage. Actual figures will help a reader to understand the difference between projections and actual usage. If difference is very low, for example, if difference between actual usage and projections is less than 2 percent in both cases then it might be advisable to ignore the data completely. Moreover, the author should also prove that projection numbers are correct and those numbers are not based upon any wrong assumptions. For example, while calculating projections for bus usage, the transit company could have made few assumptions which are wrong and therefore, projections figures are skewed.
Secondly, the author should support with actual data that high bus fare or cheap parking price are real reasons behind the reduced usage of buses. There could be other reasons for lower usage. For example, lots of people stay near stations and they prefer walking to train stations or people don't prefer buses because buses are slow and as compared to cars they took long time to reach stations. In such cases reducing bus fare or raising parking space won't affect usage of buses.
Thirdly, it will be helpful if the statement puts forward reasons for which the transit company should seek more usage of buses. In fact, it could be that the transit company is not at all interested in usage of buses. For example, if the transit company is not expecting any profit at all from usage of buses then the transit company won't pay any attention to the author's suggestion. On the other hand, if the author puts forward benefits of increased bus usage then the transit company will take more interest in the author's suggestion.
Overall, I think it will be useful if the author does a survey among users of buses and trains to understand reasons of lower bus usage. The result of survey along with data mentioned in above paragraphs will validate accuracy of above statement. Entire data will also enable the transit company to take proper steps to increase usage of buses.
