"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company's expectations. However commuter use of shuttle buses that transport people to the subway is below the projected volume.If the transit company expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations."
The argument states that, because the commuter use of the shuttle bus service is below the projected volume, the transit company should reduce the bus fares or increase the fees for parking at the subway station. The argument in its current form is not convincing - the support provided for the conclusion is weak and the argument makes too many unwarranted assumptions.
First, the transit company does not consider reasons due to which lesser number of people are using the shuttle bus service. Maybe the shuttle bus service is not available from some important parts of the city, as a result of which the people have to use other means to reach the subway station. It is also possible that the shuttle bus service is not comfortable and therefore people generally avoid using the shuttle bus service. If these are the reasons, then reducing bus fares will not help the transit company much as people will still prefer other means of reaching the subway. Second, the author suggests an increase in parking fees to deter people using their own vehicles to reach the subway. Maybe most of the people that use the subway train are walking to the station or using their bicycle. They use this as means to stay fit. Thus increasing the parking fees at subway may not help the transit company to increase the volume of people using shuttle bus service. Third, it is possible that the transit company was very positive when projecting the volume of people who will travel by bus and as a result overestimated the numbers. For example, in the build, operate ,and transfer mode of building highways many construction companies overestimate the projected number of vehicles using the road. But most of the time the actual usage is below the projected level. If this is the case then no matter what actions the transit company takes it will not be able to get the projected volume.
In sum, the argument fails to consider many important reasons which may have been responsible for lower use of shuttle bus service. If it included the above points, instead of reaching a direct conclusion then the argument would have been more sound and convincing.
The argument states that, because the commuter use of the shuttle bus service is below the projected volume, the transit company should reduce the bus fares or increase the fees for parking at the subway station. The argument in its current form is not convincing - the support provided for the conclusion is weak and the argument makes too many unwarranted assumptions.
First, the transit company does not consider reasons due to which lesser number of people are using the shuttle bus service. Maybe the shuttle bus service is not available from some important parts of the city, as a result of which the people have to use other means to reach the subway station. It is also possible that the shuttle bus service is not comfortable and therefore people generally avoid using the shuttle bus service. If these are the reasons, then reducing bus fares will not help the transit company much as people will still prefer other means of reaching the subway. Second, the author suggests an increase in parking fees to deter people using their own vehicles to reach the subway. Maybe most of the people that use the subway train are walking to the station or using their bicycle. They use this as means to stay fit. Thus increasing the parking fees at subway may not help the transit company to increase the volume of people using shuttle bus service. Third, it is possible that the transit company was very positive when projecting the volume of people who will travel by bus and as a result overestimated the numbers. For example, in the build, operate ,and transfer mode of building highways many construction companies overestimate the projected number of vehicles using the road. But most of the time the actual usage is below the projected level. If this is the case then no matter what actions the transit company takes it will not be able to get the projected volume.
In sum, the argument fails to consider many important reasons which may have been responsible for lower use of shuttle bus service. If it included the above points, instead of reaching a direct conclusion then the argument would have been more sound and convincing.
