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. to decrease in the next few years.
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.
OA: C
P.S: Experts - could you please provide your DETAILED analysis for this question ?
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
The difficulty with the proposed high-speed train line is
This topic has expert replies
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Whenever we're asked to WEAKEN an argument, the argument must contain at least one major flaw. Look for LOGICAL GAPS between the stated premises and the conclusion.
Premises:
- used plane = 1/3 price of train
- plane can fly anywhere
- train is fixed
- consumer choose free-wheel systems
Conclusion:
- a sufficient market for the train will not exist
Logical Gaps:
Are airplanes really a free-wheel system? Or are they fixed somehow? Can they really fly anywhere that a train goes?
Do consumers only choose travel option based on free-wheel v. fixed, or are there other considerations? What about cost, comfort, or convenience?
In order to weaken the argument, we need a new piece of information that addresses one of these logical gaps.
(A) Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.
Without further information, this doesn't tell us anything about whether this makes train travel more appealing to the consumer. Do consumer like mechanical travel? We have no idea.
(B) Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.
We're not talking about cars and buses. Our argument is talking about the comparison between planes and trains.
(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.
This tells us that our assumption that planes are free-wheel is false, and thus they do not have an advance over trains. This weakens the argument. Correct!
(D) The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.
This is a disadvantage for trains, and can only strengthen the argument.
(E) For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.
Again, this strengthens rather than weakens - if people prefer planes, the market for trains will shrink.
The answer is C.
Premises:
- used plane = 1/3 price of train
- plane can fly anywhere
- train is fixed
- consumer choose free-wheel systems
Conclusion:
- a sufficient market for the train will not exist
Logical Gaps:
Are airplanes really a free-wheel system? Or are they fixed somehow? Can they really fly anywhere that a train goes?
Do consumers only choose travel option based on free-wheel v. fixed, or are there other considerations? What about cost, comfort, or convenience?
In order to weaken the argument, we need a new piece of information that addresses one of these logical gaps.
(A) Cars, buses, and planes require the efforts of drivers and pilots to guide them, whereas the train will be guided mechanically.
Without further information, this doesn't tell us anything about whether this makes train travel more appealing to the consumer. Do consumer like mechanical travel? We have no idea.
(B) Cars and buses are not nearly as fast as the high-speed train will be.
We're not talking about cars and buses. Our argument is talking about the comparison between planes and trains.
(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.
This tells us that our assumption that planes are free-wheel is false, and thus they do not have an advance over trains. This weakens the argument. Correct!
(D) The high-speed train line cannot use currently underutilized train stations in large cities.
This is a disadvantage for trains, and can only strengthen the argument.
(E) For long trips, most people prefer to fly rather than to take ground-level transportation.
Again, this strengthens rather than weakens - if people prefer planes, the market for trains will shrink.
The answer is C.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Hi Ceilidh,
Thanks for the DETAILED analysis.
However, a few clarifications required -
It appears to me bit weird because the argument says that planes/aircrafts are examples of free-wheel systems preferred by consumers because they do not have fixed routes and can fly anywhere. Whereas the OA CLEARLY contradicts this part -- Planes are not a free-wheel system.
So considering the above aspect, can we say that in a CR WEAKEN question, the WEAKENER is the one that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what has been conveyed in the argument and thus REFUTES the CONCLUSION. Am I correct ?
Thanks for the DETAILED analysis.
However, a few clarifications required -
It appears to me bit weird because the argument says that planes/aircrafts are examples of free-wheel systems preferred by consumers because they do not have fixed routes and can fly anywhere. Whereas the OA CLEARLY contradicts this part -- Planes are not a free-wheel system.
So considering the above aspect, can we say that in a CR WEAKEN question, the WEAKENER is the one that DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS what has been conveyed in the argument and thus REFUTES the CONCLUSION. Am I correct ?
Last edited by RBBmba@2014 on Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Hi Ceilidh,
Could you please share your feedback on my above concerns ?
Look forward to your thoughts. Much thanks in advance!
P.S: @ Other Verbal Experts - would be curious to know your thoughts on this!
Could you please share your feedback on my above concerns ?
Look forward to your thoughts. Much thanks in advance!
P.S: @ Other Verbal Experts - would be curious to know your thoughts on this!
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Hi RBBmba,
You're right, this is a weird argument - usually in CR arguments, we can take as given that the premises are true. In fact, the right answer will rarely refute them. Usually in a strengthen or weaken question, the right answer will introduce a new piece of information that points to something that the original argument was missing. This one is rare: the right answer states that a given premise wasn't in fact true.
I wish I had a more satisfying answer for you than this: CR (and verbal in general) can be more fluid than the quant side, because it doesn't have fixed rules. Most of the questions that you see will conform to relatively standard templates (in weaken questions, for example, the standard template is that there are premises given and a conclusion drawn, but there were unstated assumptions drawn, and the right answer attacks those assumptions). However, you will see a few like this one that do something slightly different. Just be ready to take each CR problem on a case-by-case basis.
I hope this helps!
You're right, this is a weird argument - usually in CR arguments, we can take as given that the premises are true. In fact, the right answer will rarely refute them. Usually in a strengthen or weaken question, the right answer will introduce a new piece of information that points to something that the original argument was missing. This one is rare: the right answer states that a given premise wasn't in fact true.
I wish I had a more satisfying answer for you than this: CR (and verbal in general) can be more fluid than the quant side, because it doesn't have fixed rules. Most of the questions that you see will conform to relatively standard templates (in weaken questions, for example, the standard template is that there are premises given and a conclusion drawn, but there were unstated assumptions drawn, and the right answer attacks those assumptions). However, you will see a few like this one that do something slightly different. Just be ready to take each CR problem on a case-by-case basis.
I hope this helps!
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Ceilidh - could you please share any OTHER Official Questions in which right answer DIRECTLY contradicts/refutes the premises of the ARGUMENT ?
GENERALLY,in a CR WEAKEN question on GMAT, the OA will refute the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Right ?
GENERALLY,in a CR WEAKEN question on GMAT, the OA will refute the CONCLUSION of the ARGUMENT. Right ?
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
You're absolutely right - the right answer will almost always weaken the CONCLUSION by attacking an unstated assumption. There really aren't too many examples of CR questions in which the right answer weakens the premise rather than the conclusion. The only one I found in OG 2015 or 2016 was OG 13/2015 #4 (You can do a quick google search for the full text). It's not something that you'll come across much.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
ceilidh - OG 13 #4 : I think, it attacks the CONCLUSION itself -- Current would kill weeds and would make plants stronger. Isn't it ? And the OA here seems to identify the logical gap stating that weeds are a type of plants, so prediction in the CONCLUSION will shatter because Current would have similar affect on BOTH weeds and plants.ceilidh.erickson wrote:You're absolutely right - the right answer will almost always weaken the CONCLUSION by attacking an unstated assumption. There really aren't too many examples of CR questions in which the right answer weakens the premise rather than the conclusion. The only one I found in OG 2015 or 2016 was OG 13/2015 #4 (You can do a quick google search for the full text). It's not something that you'll come across much.
A quick question: for the types of CR in which the right answer weakens the premise rather than the conclusion, how we can identify those Qs (OTHER THAN the context/meaning of that SPECIFIC CR at hand) ?
Any thoughts ?
Last edited by RBBmba@2014 on Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
@ ceilidh - could you please share your feedback on my above concerns ?
Look forward to hear from you. Much thanks!
Look forward to hear from you. Much thanks!
-
RBBmba@2014
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 944
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:21 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:5 members
Hi ceilidh - any update on my above queries ?RBBmba@2014 wrote:ceilidh - OG 13 #4 : I think, it attacks the CONCLUSION itself -- Current would kill weeds and would make plants stronger. Isn't it ? And the OA here seems to identify the logical gap stating that weeds are a type of plants, so prediction in the CONCLUSION will shatter because Current would have similar affect on BOTH weeds and plants.ceilidh.erickson wrote:You're absolutely right - the right answer will almost always weaken the CONCLUSION by attacking an unstated assumption. There really aren't too many examples of CR questions in which the right answer weakens the premise rather than the conclusion. The only one I found in OG 2015 or 2016 was OG 13/2015 #4 (You can do a quick google search for the full text). It's not something that you'll come across much.
A quick question: for the types of CR in which the right answer weakens the premise rather than the conclusion, how we can identify those Qs (OTHER THAN the context/meaning of that SPECIFIC CR at hand) ?
Any thoughts ?
Look forward to hear from you. Much thanks in advance!
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Hey RBB,
(Apologies that I didn't get back to you sooner. I only log onto the forum once every week or two).
I agree - OG13 #4 is attacking the conclusion more than the premise. The structure of that one was also a bit unusual, because we had no stated premises - only a conclusion. Normally we aim to disrupt the connection between the given premises and the conclusion. So, I thought this one was a little bit similar, in that the right answer basically said that something was UNTRUE, rather than addressing an unstated assumption.
So in short - there are hardly any examples out there of "weaken" questions that refute a PREMISE rather than attacking the connection between the premises and conclusion. I wouldn't try to look for any particular pattern to identify them, because it's highly unlikely that you'll see many - or any - of them.
Just remember that most CR questions will conform to a standard structure, but some will be anomalies. Don't try memorize particular approaches for those - just be adaptable in your thinking, and try to "roll with the punches."
(Apologies that I didn't get back to you sooner. I only log onto the forum once every week or two).
I agree - OG13 #4 is attacking the conclusion more than the premise. The structure of that one was also a bit unusual, because we had no stated premises - only a conclusion. Normally we aim to disrupt the connection between the given premises and the conclusion. So, I thought this one was a little bit similar, in that the right answer basically said that something was UNTRUE, rather than addressing an unstated assumption.
So in short - there are hardly any examples out there of "weaken" questions that refute a PREMISE rather than attacking the connection between the premises and conclusion. I wouldn't try to look for any particular pattern to identify them, because it's highly unlikely that you'll see many - or any - of them.
Just remember that most CR questions will conform to a standard structure, but some will be anomalies. Don't try memorize particular approaches for those - just be adaptable in your thinking, and try to "roll with the punches."
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
