subway system

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:35 pm
Followed by:4 members

subway system

by Ankitaverma » Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:44 pm
Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will surely not make it financially viable. After all, the reason the system is now government-owned is precisely that in 1979 its original private owners went bankrupt operating it.
Ms. Gallis: But remember that government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970's.

Of the following, the best assessment of the logical role played by Ms. Gallis' response is that her response

(A) offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead's conclusion
(B) states one of Mr. Mead's tacit assumptions
(C) contradicts Mr. Mead's factual claims about the system's original owners
(D) identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion
(E) implies that Mr. Mead's conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives

Q/A-a why not d

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:56 pm
Good news for you!

I searched for this question and it turns out that D is the answer. So you were correct.

The reason that A is not the answer is because of course the second speaker (Ms. Gallis) does not support the first speaker (Mr. Mead) and that is what choice A states. Instead she of course gives a reason why his evidence does not lead to his conclusion and that is choice D.

This is a bit of a strange question, but at least one source identifies it as being from the GMAT Paper Test. Of course that means that it is 15 years old so maybe that is why it does not feel like a current GMAT question.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:37 am
Location: Kolkata, India
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:2 members

by Abhishek009 » Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:38 am
Ankitaverma wrote:Mr. Mead: Turning this subway system over to private ownership will surely not make it financially viable. After all, the reason the system is now government-owned is precisely that in 1979 its original private owners went bankrupt operating it.
Ms. Gallis: But remember that government price controls were keeping fares unreasonably low in the 1970's.

Of the following, the best assessment of the logical role played by Ms. Gallis' response is that her response

(A) offers additional evidence for the correctness of Mr. Mead's conclusion
(B) states one of Mr. Mead's tacit assumptions
(C) contradicts Mr. Mead's factual claims about the system's original owners
(D) identifies a weakness in the evidence Mr. Mead uses as a basis for his conclusion
(E) implies that Mr. Mead's conclusion is correct, but not for the reasons Mr. Mead gives

Q/A-a why not d
IMO D as well...

Meads - Claims privatisation will not be financially Viable , since in 1979 they were Bankrupted.

Gallis - Mentions that Governmental regulations led to bankruptcy , hence points fingers at Government...
Abhishek