BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Mooreville’s subway

Expert replies
by umeshpatil » Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:47 pm
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?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Ashujain » Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:56 am
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?
If we paraphrase the question it becomes How will a 5% increase in train trips be enough for 20% increase in ridership?

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
Join the discussion

by Kasia@EconomistGMAT » Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:06 am
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
Join the discussion

by umeshpatil » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:22 am
Thanks Ashujain, Your explanation justifies the OG answer.
Join the discussion

by Needgmat » Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:53 am
Hi Verbal Experts ,

Can you please explain why D is correct answer. I still don't understand.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin
Join the discussion

by gocoder » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:12 am
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 ?
Join the discussion

by gocoder » Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:24 am
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 ?
Join the discussion

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:05 pm
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 ?
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.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Join the discussion

by gocoder » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:08 am
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.
Thanks for your reply. overlooked the alternative issues that could occur if the buses were in parallel paths.
Join the discussion