According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically. ...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically. The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls on the two high-way bridges along the route the rail line serves. Although the proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority's plan for securing the necessary funds should be rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority's plan to finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls?

Before the authority increases tolls on any of the area bridges, it is required by law to hold public hearings at which objections to the proposed increase can be raised.

Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines.

Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect, many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase.

When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.

The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically.	What it says: The transportation authority believes rail improvements would boost ridership significantly What it does: Sets up the basic premise that improvements are beneficial What it is: Authority's claim/prediction Visualization: Current ridership: 1,000 daily → After improvements: 5,000 daily (dramatic increase)
The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls on the two highway bridges along the route the rail line serves.	What it says: They'll pay for improvements by increasing bridge tolls over 5 years What it does: Explains the funding mechanism for the rail improvements mentioned earlier What it is: Authority's financing plan Visualization: Bridge tolls: $2 → $4 over 5 years to fund rail improvements
Although the proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority's plan for securing the necessary funds should be rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit.	What it says: Author agrees improvements are needed but opposes the funding plan as unfair to drivers What it does: Presents the main argument against the authority's plan, shifting from factual setup to the author's position What it is: Author's main conclusion with reasoning Visualization: Drivers pay 100% of costs but get 0% of benefits from rail improvements

Argument Flow:

The passage starts by presenting the authority's position (rail improvements needed and funding plan), then shifts to the author's counter-argument that challenges the fairness of the funding method while accepting the need for improvements.

Main Conclusion:

The authority's plan to finance rail improvements by raising bridge tolls should be rejected because it unfairly makes drivers pay for something that doesn't benefit them.

Logical Structure:

The author uses a fairness-based argument: since drivers get no benefit from rail improvements but would pay the entire cost through higher tolls, the funding plan is unjust and should be rejected.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would cast doubt on the effectiveness of the authority's plan to finance rail improvements by increasing bridge tolls

Precision of Claims

The key claim is about the effectiveness of a financing plan - specifically that raising bridge tolls over 5 years will successfully fund the rail improvements. This involves financial/economic activity and assumes certain behaviors from drivers and toll revenue generation

Strategy

To weaken the effectiveness of the financing plan, we need to find scenarios that would prevent the authority from successfully collecting the expected toll revenue over the 5-year period. We should look for ways the plan could backfire or fail to generate the needed funds, while accepting the facts that improvements are needed and that the authority has this plan

Answer Choices Explained

Before the authority increases tolls on any of the area bridges, it is required by law to hold public hearings at which objections to the proposed increase can be raised.

This choice mentions that public hearings are required before toll increases. While this might create some procedural hurdles or delays, it doesn't actually challenge the effectiveness of the financing plan itself. The authority can still hold the required hearings and proceed with the toll increases to fund the improvements. This is more about process than effectiveness.

Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines.

This discusses the cost of paying contractors to adjust toll-collecting machines when tolls increase. While this represents an additional expense, it's likely a relatively small operational cost compared to the overall revenue expected from the toll increases. This minor expense doesn't significantly undermine the plan's ability to generate the needed funds.

Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect, many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase.

This describes people buying extra tokens before toll increases take effect to temporarily avoid higher costs. However, this behavior only delays when people pay the higher tolls - they'll eventually run out of tokens and have to pay the increased rates. This creates a short-term dip in revenue but doesn't prevent the long-term collection of funds needed for the 5-year financing plan.

When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.

This is the correct answer because it directly attacks the plan's core assumption about revenue generation. Historical evidence shows that when tolls increased on these same bridges, almost 20% of regular traffic switched to alternative routes. This is devastating because if people avoid the bridges entirely due to higher tolls, the authority loses a significant portion of its expected revenue stream. Since the financing plan depends on collecting toll revenue over 5 years, losing 20% of regular traffic would seriously compromise the plan's effectiveness.

The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.

This mentions that the authority's chairman opposes the toll increase through his automobile club membership. While this creates potential political opposition, it doesn't directly challenge whether the plan would be effective at generating revenue if implemented. Personal opposition from leadership doesn't necessarily prevent the plan from working financially.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...