Parking revenue

[prachich1987]

The city's recent enforcement of two-hour parking in its business district is unfair to residents. The restriction require drivers to move their vehicles after 120 minutes or face a 75 dollar fine.It is merely a ploy to take money away from local citizens while not benefiting them in any perceivable way.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the above argument is based.

A) Revenue from collected fines is not used by the city to improve parking-enforcement technology

B) The restrictions do not free up parking spaces that residents use when running necessary errands

C) The parking restrictions were ratified without a public referendum

D) Visiting drivers are just as likely to be ticketed as city residents

E) The city will have to hire new parking enforcements officers to ensure that the new restrictions are observed.

OA : After some discussion
Source : Princeton

[Ravish]

B.

Using the premise + (assumption) = Conclusion formule we get:

Premise: The city's new parking limit enforcement is a ploy to take money away from residents and does not benefit them in any way.

Conclusion: The new parking rules are unfair to residents;

Assumption: We need to find an answer choice where a particular benefit to residents is indeed not met by the rules.

Using the negation technique on B

If the restrictions DO benefit residents who need to run necessary errands (by freeing up parking spaces) then the authors argument is not valid as there indeed is not benefit to residents by these new restrictions.

If the restrictions DO NOT benefit residents who need to run necessary errands, then the authors argument is valid.

Looking at the other answer choices:

A) Not using the money to improve parking enforcement technology is all well and good but this does not indicate a benefit to residents. Moreover, the argument states nothing about the current state of the parking level technology of the city.

C) Tempting but still no 'benefit' listed.

D) Irrelevant. This does not change the fact that the rules still hurt residents.

E) Irrelevant.

[diebeatsthegmat]

The city's recent enforcement of two-hour parking in its business district is unfair to residents. The restriction require drivers to move their vehicles after 120 minutes or face a 75 dollar fine.It is merely a ploy to take money away from local citizens while not benefiting them in any perceivable way.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the above argument is based.

A) Revenue from collected fines is not used by the city to improve parking-enforcement technology

B) The restrictions do not free up parking spaces that residents use when running necessary errands

C) The parking restrictions were ratified without a public referendum

D) Visiting drivers are just as likely to be ticketed as city residents

E) The city will have to hire new parking enforcements officers to ensure that the new restrictions are observed.

OA : After some discussion
Source : Princeton

its so crazy after reading all answer choices, and i dont like this at all
A is my answer....

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

Answer should be B.

This is another example of the harder class of CR assumption questions. In this class, the assumption is not merely a linking sentence connecting the premises to the conclusion, but rather a necessary step WITHOUT WHICH the conclusion cannot be reached. In other words, in order to reach the conclusion that "It is merely a ploy to take money away from local citizens while not benefiting them in any perceivable way" from the premises given, we HAVE to assume something: that there are indeed no benefits from this restriction.

B is an example of such an assumption: If B were not true (i.e the restrictions DO free up parking space that residents use), then the restriction does benefit local citizens: it frees up parking spaces, albeit in a cruel, tax-like manner. Thus, in order to reach the extreme conclusion that the restrictions are just a money-making ploy, we HAVE to assume that this benefit does not occur, making B a necessary assumption.

[diebeatsthegmat]

Answer should be B.

This is another example of the harder class of CR assumption questions. In this class, the assumption is not merely a linking sentence connecting the premises to the conclusion, but rather a necessary step WITHOUT WHICH the conclusion cannot be reached. In other words, in order to reach the conclusion that "It is merely a ploy to take money away from local citizens while not benefiting them in any perceivable way" from the premises given, we HAVE to assume something: that there are indeed no benefits from this restriction.

B is an example of such an assumption: If B were not true (i.e the restrictions DO free up parking space that residents use), then the restriction does benefit local citizens: it frees up parking spaces, albeit in a cruel, tax-like manner. Thus, in order to reach the extreme conclusion that the restrictions are just a money-making ploy, we HAVE to assume that this benefit does not occur, making B a necessary assumption.

sorry, but can you please explain the answer choice A??
as i understand from reading, the passage says that the city enforced a restriction: citizen or have to move their vehicle every 2 hours or pay free and it concludes that this restriction is just to "steal" money away from resident and doesnt benifit the resident all
E, D, C are out of scope.
i really dont like A much but i also dont see anything right with B...
B says " re restrictions do not free up parking spaces that residents use when running neccessary errand" i dont see whether it deals with " benefiting the resident" or not
while A says " revenue from collected fines is not used by the city to improve parking" if it is used to improve parking that money does benefit resident and it does weaken the conclusion.
i dont understand

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

Read A carefully - the revenues are used to improve parking-enforcement technology , not parking. This is indeed a money making scheme: the money from parking tickets is used to buy more advanced tools to make sure (=enforce) that you pay for parking - tow trucks to carry off people who park for more than 2 hours, automatic meter maids, robotic cops. etc. this benefits the city's parking enforcement dept., but has no direct benefit for the citizens themselves.

B speaks about the benefits of parking fees to begin with. Think about it: why impose parking fees, other than to make money? The answer is that if parking is free, then the average joe has no incentive not to leave his car in the same spot for the whole day, or week even. Limiting parking for two hours is a way to force people to move from the parking spot and allow someone else his two hours shopping/errands/whatever.

[prachich1987]

The OA is B

[diebeatsthegmat]

Read A carefully - the revenues are used to improve parking-enforcement technology , not parking. This is indeed a money making scheme: the money from parking tickets is used to buy more advanced tools to make sure (=enforce) that you pay for parking - tow trucks to carry off people who park for more than 2 hours, automatic meter maids, robotic cops. etc. this benefits the city's parking enforcement dept., but has no direct benefit for the citizens themselves.

B speaks about the benefits of parking fees to begin with. Think about it: why impose parking fees, other than to make money? The answer is that if parking is free, then the average joe has no incentive not to leave his car in the same spot for the whole day, or week even. Limiting parking for two hours is a way to force people to move from the parking spot and allow someone else his two hours shopping/errands/whatever.

ohh thank you

[mundasingh123]

@Geva

What abt C.I did reach the OA .I got this correct but i still would like to have a more concrete explanation to why C is wrong.
For C
If the new regulation is unfair, why did the majority of the residents support the regulation in the first place.
Against C.
The residents were gullible enough to agree on this regulation.They werent aware of the consequences and the implications.

For C,
The majority of the residents cant be gullible enough not to understand whats in it for them, what the regulation could mean for them

For Mundasingh123,He is in a quandary