Crowding on Mooreville's subway frequently leads to delays, because it is difficult for passengers to exit from the trains. Subway ridership is projected to increase by 20 percent over the next 10 years. The Mooreville Transit Authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period. Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for officials' prediction?
A. By changing maintenance schedules, the Transit Authority can achieve the 5 percent increase in train trips without purchasing any new subway cars.
B. The Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways.
C. For most commuters who use the subway system, there is no practical alternative public transportation available.
D. Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours when trains are no sparsely used.
E. The 5 percent increase in the number of train trips can be achieved without an equal increase in Transit Authority operational costs.
----------------
Premise: Crowding on Mooreville's subway(MS) => difficult to exit from the trains=> delay in travel
Ridership will increase by 20% in 10 years.
Conclusion: Increase of trains by 5 % in 10 years is sufficient to avoid crowding.
Need to find something that strengthens:
A. Not sure if it will reduce the crowding and also it weakens the conclusion.
B. It is just repeats the conclusion and cannot strengthen.
C. As there is no other alternative for travel, only train route need to make efficient. So, it strengthens the conclusion. Answer.
D. I am not sure if this supports the official's prediction to increase the trains by 5%.
E. This somewhat supports, but costs are not considered anywhere.
My Answer is C. but OG has other answer. Can anyone elaborate why OA is D?
Mooreville’s subway
This topic has expert replies
- umeshpatil
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:23 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Ashujain
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:36 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:1 members
If we paraphrase the question it becomes How will a 5% increase in train trips be enough for 20% increase in ridership?umeshpatil wrote:Crowding on Mooreville's subway frequently leads to delays, because it is difficult for passengers to exit from the trains. Subway ridership is projected to increase by 20 percent over the next 10 years. The Mooreville Transit Authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period. Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for officials' prediction?
A. By changing maintenance schedules, the Transit Authority can achieve the 5 percent increase in train trips without purchasing any new subway cars.
B. The Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways.
C. For most commuters who use the subway system, there is no practical alternative public transportation available.
D. Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours when trains are no sparsely used.
E. The 5 percent increase in the number of train trips can be achieved without an equal increase in Transit Authority operational costs.
----------------
Premise: Crowding on Mooreville's subway(MS) => difficult to exit from the trains=> delay in travel
Ridership will increase by 20% in 10 years.
Conclusion: Increase of trains by 5 % in 10 years is sufficient to avoid crowding.
Need to find something that strengthens:
A. Not sure if it will reduce the crowding and also it weakens the conclusion.
B. It is just repeats the conclusion and cannot strengthen.
C. As there is no other alternative for travel, only train route need to make efficient. So, it strengthens the conclusion. Answer.
D. I am not sure if this supports the official's prediction to increase the trains by 5%.
E. This somewhat supports, but costs are not considered anywhere.
My Answer is C. but OG has other answer. Can anyone elaborate why OA is D?
A) does not answer the question
B) out of scope
C) does not answer the question
D) It says that Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours. 'Off-peak hours' means 'Not in the period of most frequent or heaviest use' and hence the increase will happen during a time when the ridership is not very high and hence, a 5% increase in train trips will be enough for 20% increase in ridership
E) out of scope
- Kasia@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 7:08 am
- Thanked: 322 times
- Followed by:143 members
Umeshaptil, could you explain to me in detail why you think that C is correct? Then I'll be able to give you some pointers.
Kasia
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course
"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.
"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/
"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course
Senior Instructor
Master GMAT - the #1 rated GMAT course
"¢ If you found my post helpful, please click the "thank" button and/or follow me.
"¢ Take a 7 day free trial and find out why Economist GMAT is the highest rated GMAT course - https://gmat.economist.com/
"¢ Read GMAT Economist reviews - https://reviews.beatthegmat.com/economis ... mat-course
- umeshpatil
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:23 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
choice B says:
" the Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways. "
Does this statement mean different bus trips cover along the same routes as subways do in the sense that bus stops covering the same stops like subway stops.
if this right, shouldn't the 5% of trips along the subways should shift partial burden from the trains ?
" the Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways. "
Does this statement mean different bus trips cover along the same routes as subways do in the sense that bus stops covering the same stops like subway stops.
if this right, shouldn't the 5% of trips along the subways should shift partial burden from the trains ?
choice B says:
" the Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways. "
Does this statement mean different bus trips cover along the same routes as subways do in the sense that bus stops covering the same stops like subway stops.
if this right, shouldn't the 5% of trips along the subways should shift partial burden from the trains ?
" the Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways. "
Does this statement mean different bus trips cover along the same routes as subways do in the sense that bus stops covering the same stops like subway stops.
if this right, shouldn't the 5% of trips along the subways should shift partial burden from the trains ?
- DavidG@VeritasPrep
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2663
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1153 times
- Followed by:128 members
- GMAT Score:770
We have to take the language of the answer choice at face value. All we know is that the bus routes connect to the train routes - we don't know that they travel along similar paths. Moreover, we don't know that train commuters would use these additional bus trips as substitutes for train trips. (Isn't is possible that more bus routes connecting to train routes would lead to even more people on the train?) And even if that 5% increase in bus trips does help alleviate some of the additional burden, it still wouldn't explain why there'd be no more delays due to overcrowding, as the conclusion states.gocoder wrote:choice B says:
" the Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways. "
Does this statement mean different bus trips cover along the same routes as subways do in the sense that bus stops covering the same stops like subway stops.
if this right, shouldn't the 5% of trips along the subways should shift partial burden from the trains ?
Thanks for your reply. overlooked the alternative issues that could occur if the buses were in parallel paths.DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
We have to take the language of the answer choice at face value. All we know is that the bus routes connect to the train routes - we don't know that they travel along similar paths. Moreover, we don't know that train commuters would use these additional bus trips as substitutes for train trips. (Isn't is possible that more bus routes connecting to train routes would lead to even more people on the train?) And even if that 5% increase in bus trips does help alleviate some of the additional burden, it still wouldn't explain why there'd be no more delays due to overcrowding, as the conclusion states.