According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically. ...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
"The argument starts by presenting the authority's plan (rail improvements funded by bridge tolls), then immediately pivots to criticize this funding method based on fairness principles."
Main Conclusion:
"The authority's plan to finance rail improvements through bridge tolls should be rejected."
Logical Structure:
"The author uses a fairness-based argument: since drivers would pay all costs but receive no benefits from rail improvements, the funding plan is unfair 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 claims involve specific entities and relationships: bridge toll increases will generate sufficient funds over 5 years to finance rail improvements. We need to focus on what could make this funding mechanism ineffective
Strategy
For this weaken question, we need to find scenarios that would make the toll-increase funding plan less likely to work effectively. We should look for ways the plan could fail to generate the needed revenue or face implementation problems. We cannot question the facts given (that improvements are needed, that they would increase ridership, or that tolls will be raised), but we can introduce new information about why this funding approach might not work
This talks about required public hearings before toll increases. While this might create some procedural hurdles or delays, it doesn't fundamentally challenge the effectiveness of the funding plan itself. The hearings are just part of the process - they don't indicate that the plan won't work to generate the needed revenue. This is more about process than effectiveness.
This mentions that the authority must pay a contractor to adjust toll-collecting machines when tolls increase. This represents a small additional cost but doesn't meaningfully impact the plan's ability to generate the substantial funds needed for rail improvements over 5 years. The revenue from increased tolls would far outweigh these minor operational costs.
This discusses commuters buying extra tokens before toll increases take effect. While this might delay some revenue collection in the short term, it doesn't affect the long-term effectiveness of the 5-year funding plan. People can't stockpile tokens indefinitely, and the plan spans multiple years, so this temporary behavior doesn't undermine the overall revenue generation.
This directly attacks the plan's effectiveness by providing concrete evidence that toll increases on these specific bridges drive away significant traffic. When tolls were previously raised on these same two bridges, almost 20% of regular commuters switched to an alternative route. This historical pattern suggests that raising tolls again would likely reduce bridge usage substantially, thereby reducing the revenue generated and making the financing plan less effective at collecting the needed funds.
The chairman's membership in an automobile club that opposes the toll increase might create political obstacles, but this doesn't directly challenge the plan's effectiveness at generating revenue. Opposition doesn't necessarily mean the plan won't work - it's about political dynamics rather than the fundamental mechanics of the funding approach.