public transport

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

public transport

by delhiboy1979 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:51 am
The city's public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government, which finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service. If public transportation were handled by a private firm, profits would be vigorously pursued, thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds.
The statements above best support the conclusion that

A the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry
B political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs
C private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs
D the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm
E the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:58 pm
Location: india
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:700

by moorthy76 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:29 am
IMO D
Best Regards,
Surya

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:05 pm

by rohit9359 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:20 am
I think its (B). OA please?

Thanks,
Rohit.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:18 pm
GMAT Score:720

Re: public transport

by sg1928 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:41 am
delhiboy1979 wrote:The city's public transportation system should be removed from the jurisdiction of the municipal government, which finds it politically impossible either to raise fares or to institute cost-saving reductions in service. If public transportation were handled by a private firm, profits would be vigorously pursued, thereby eliminating the necessity for covering operating costs with government funds.
The statements above best support the conclusion that

A the private firms that would handle public transportation would have experience in the transportation industry
B political considerations would not prevent private firms from ensuring that revenues cover operating costs
C private firms would receive government funding if it were needed to cover operating costs
D the public would approve the cost-cutting actions taken by the private firm
E the municipal government would not be resigned to accumulating merely enough income to cover costs
The first sentence best supports 'B'.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:51 am
Thanked: 1 times

by rseeker2 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:47 pm
Isn't B more an assumption than a conclusion?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:41 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by anshulseth » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:45 pm
I think the question asks for an assumption and not conclusion.
Because all the choices don't look like they are stating a conclusion, but rather seem to put up an assumption.

IMO B is the right answer.
Reason being its politics which is not allowing govt to do some action.
Check 'either...or'.

Thus, politics should be part of the assumption.
B covers both politics as well as cost, and is thus a better answer.
While D leaves out on the political aspects.
Asset

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:51 pm
I too had selected D, but the OA is B. I guess it is about the assumption and not the conclusion we need to look for.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Fri May 13, 2016 10:41 pm
Cannot decide between D and B. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please