Here is the essay prompt
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company's projections. However, commuter use of
the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company
expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle
bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Essay:
The argument claims that though the commuter use of new subway train is exceeding transit projections, there is not much increase in the commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to subway stations. Hence, the transit company must either reduce bus fares or increase the price of parking ticket so that the commuters ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factor on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the commuter use of subway buses is below projected volume because many people drive to subways rather than taking a subway bus. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, there is a possibility that many commuters reside in areas closer to subways i.e. within a walking distance of 15 - 20 minutes. These commuters will prefer to walk to the subway rather than taking a subway bus. If this is the case then reducing the fares or increasing the parking fee will not have intended effect.
Second, the argument fails to identify that why most people drive to subways. It is possible that the commuters do not find the subway buses secure or convenient. Hence in order to get commuters to use subway buses, the transit company should work towards making the subways more secure and convenient rather than just reducing the bus fares.
Third, if the parking fee is already higher than the roundtrip bus fare and commuters still prefer to drive to subway station instead of using the subway bus then increasing the parking fee will have little effect. In this case preference takes over saving money and Transit Company might not get the expected results.
Fourth, If four or five commuters carpool to the subway station then the expense per head of carpooling will be less when compared to the reduced bus fare. Also if the parking fee is increased then the increase will be minimal when the total fee is distributed in four or five equal parts.
If the argument had considered the above scenarios then it would have been more convincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
"Commuter use of the new subway train is exceeding the transit company's projections. However, commuter use of
the shuttle buses that transport people to the subway stations is below the projected volume. If the transit company
expects commuters to ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there, it must either reduce the shuttle
bus fares or increase the price of parking at the subway stations."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Essay:
The argument claims that though the commuter use of new subway train is exceeding transit projections, there is not much increase in the commuter use of the shuttle buses that transport people to subway stations. Hence, the transit company must either reduce bus fares or increase the price of parking ticket so that the commuters ride the shuttle buses to the subway rather than drive there. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factor on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the commuter use of subway buses is below projected volume because many people drive to subways rather than taking a subway bus. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, there is a possibility that many commuters reside in areas closer to subways i.e. within a walking distance of 15 - 20 minutes. These commuters will prefer to walk to the subway rather than taking a subway bus. If this is the case then reducing the fares or increasing the parking fee will not have intended effect.
Second, the argument fails to identify that why most people drive to subways. It is possible that the commuters do not find the subway buses secure or convenient. Hence in order to get commuters to use subway buses, the transit company should work towards making the subways more secure and convenient rather than just reducing the bus fares.
Third, if the parking fee is already higher than the roundtrip bus fare and commuters still prefer to drive to subway station instead of using the subway bus then increasing the parking fee will have little effect. In this case preference takes over saving money and Transit Company might not get the expected results.
Fourth, If four or five commuters carpool to the subway station then the expense per head of carpooling will be less when compared to the reduced bus fare. Also if the parking fee is increased then the increase will be minimal when the total fee is distributed in four or five equal parts.
If the argument had considered the above scenarios then it would have been more convincing.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of contributing factors.
