The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is that a used plane can be bought for one-third the price of the train line, and the plane, which is just as fast, can fly anywhere. The train would be a fixed linear system, and we live in a world that is spreading out in all directions and in which consumers choose the free-wheel systems (cars, buses, aircraft), which do not have fixed routes. Thus a sufficient market for the train will not exist.
Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the argument presented above?
(A) Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.
(B) Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.
(C) Planes are not a free-wheel system because they can fly only between airports, which are less convenient for consumers than the high-speed train’s stations would be.
(D) The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.
(E) For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.
free wheel systems
This topic has expert replies
- rahulg83
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:58 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 18 times
- Followed by:4 members
- GMAT Score:710
IMO C
D, E strengthens the conclusion
A- How to drive cars, buses or trains out of scope
B- Time is not an issue here, that means it doesn't matter in context of the argument that how fast a train or a car or a bus could be..
OA?
D, E strengthens the conclusion
A- How to drive cars, buses or trains out of scope
B- Time is not an issue here, that means it doesn't matter in context of the argument that how fast a train or a car or a bus could be..
OA?
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:30 am
- Thanked: 15 times
- Followed by:2 members
IMO C.
This is a comparison argument betwen trains and car& planes. We have given a disadv cue to which the market for train will not exist.
If we find a disadv with Cars and Planes.....The argument will be weaken
C does exactly same.
This is a comparison argument betwen trains and car& planes. We have given a disadv cue to which the market for train will not exist.
If we find a disadv with Cars and Planes.....The argument will be weaken
C does exactly same.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:1 members
We need to showcase that sufficient markets for train exist.
A) Additional Information.
B) So what!!!
D) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
E) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
C) gives advantage of trains and hence the correct answer.
A) Additional Information.
B) So what!!!
D) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
E) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
C) gives advantage of trains and hence the correct answer.
vinaynp wrote:We need to showcase that sufficient markets for train exist.
A) Additional Information.
B) So what!!!
D) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
E) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
C) gives advantage of trains and hence the correct answer.
Hi I just want to ask that why A is not correct??
I rejected C because here they are talking about limitation of planes that planes can fly between airports but trains also runs from one station to another.
Please reply and do correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks!!
- ssmiles08
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 472
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm
- Thanked: 56 times
IMO C as well.
The main argument of this blurb is that a sufficient market for the train will not exist mainly due to the fact that the train would be a fixed linear system, where as planes, cars and buses do not rely on the fixed linear system.
To weaken this argument IMO you need to state that planes cars and buses do not always rely on the free wheeler system/ or the fact that train would not all be a fixed linear system.
(C) weakens b/c it says that planes are also somewhat fixed as they can only be allowed to fly in b/w airports.
(A) tells us that trains are guided mechanically which could prove as an advantage to other systems, but it does not change that fact that it is still relying on a fixed linear system which is far inferior than a free wheeler system.
The main argument of this blurb is that a sufficient market for the train will not exist mainly due to the fact that the train would be a fixed linear system, where as planes, cars and buses do not rely on the fixed linear system.
To weaken this argument IMO you need to state that planes cars and buses do not always rely on the free wheeler system/ or the fact that train would not all be a fixed linear system.
(C) weakens b/c it says that planes are also somewhat fixed as they can only be allowed to fly in b/w airports.
(A) tells us that trains are guided mechanically which could prove as an advantage to other systems, but it does not change that fact that it is still relying on a fixed linear system which is far inferior than a free wheeler system.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:1 members
Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.ketan8 wrote:vinaynp wrote:We need to showcase that sufficient markets for train exist.
A) Additional Information.
B) So what!!!
D) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
E) If it is true then sufficient markets for train do not exist.
C) gives advantage of trains and hence the correct answer.
Hi I just want to ask that why A is not correct??
I rejected C because here they are talking about limitation of planes that planes can fly between airports but trains also runs from one station to another.
Please reply and do correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks!!
What does this say? It just gives additional information about the functioning and hence doesn't weaken the argument.