Crowding on Mooreville's subway frequently leads to delays, because it is difficult for passengers to exit from the trains. Over...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Crowding on Mooreville's subway frequently leads to delays, because it is difficult for passengers to exit from the trains. Over the next ten years, the Mooreville Transit Authority projects that subway ridership will increase by 20 percent. The authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period. Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for the officials' prediction?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Crowding on Mooreville's subway frequently leads to delays, because it is difficult for passengers to exit from the trains. |
|
| Over the next ten years, the Mooreville Transit Authority projects that subway ridership will increase by 20 percent. |
|
| The authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period. |
|
| Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by establishing that crowding causes subway delays. Then it presents what seems like a problem - ridership will increase by 20% but train trips will only increase by 5%. Despite this apparent mismatch, officials conclude that delays won't get worse. The flow creates a puzzle that needs explanation.
Main Conclusion:
The 5% increase in daily train trips will be enough to prevent delays from increasing, even though ridership is going up by 20%.
Logical Structure:
This is actually a weak argument as presented. The evidence (much bigger increase in riders than in trips) seems to contradict the conclusion (delays won't get worse). We need additional information to make this conclusion reasonable - something that would explain why a small increase in trips could handle a much larger increase in passengers without more delays.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the officials' prediction more believable
Precision of Claims
The key claim is very specific: a 5% increase in train trips will be sufficient to prevent delays from increasing, even though ridership is going up 20%. We need to focus on why this seemingly insufficient increase could actually work.
Strategy
Look for scenarios that explain how the transit system could handle 20% more passengers with only 5% more trips without making delays worse. This means we need factors that would reduce crowding per trip or make existing/exit processes more efficient, essentially breaking the direct relationship between more passengers and more crowding delays.
The population of Mooreville is not expected to increase significantly in the next ten years. This doesn't help strengthen the officials' prediction. We already know ridership is projected to increase by 20%, so whether this comes from population growth or people switching to subway doesn't matter. The core issue remains: how can a 5% increase in trips handle a 20% increase in passengers without more delays? This choice doesn't address that fundamental question.
The Transit Authority also plans a 5% increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways. This actually could weaken the prediction rather than strengthen it. More bus trips connecting to subways might bring even more passengers to the subway system, potentially making the crowding problem worse, not better.
The Transit Authority projects that the number of Mooreville residents who commute to work by automobile will increase in the next ten years. This is irrelevant to the subway delay prediction. Whether more people drive cars doesn't affect how the subway system handles its projected 20% ridership increase with only 5% more trips.
Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours when trains now are sparsely used. This is the strongest answer because it directly explains why the officials' prediction makes sense. If the additional passengers are mostly riding during currently underutilized times (when trains aren't crowded), then existing capacity can absorb most of these riders without creating the crowding that causes delays. The 5% increase in trips would be sufficient to handle any remaining needs. This breaks the assumption that more riders automatically means more crowding.
The 5 percent increase in the number of train trips can be achieved without an equal increase in Transit Authority operational costs. This addresses cost efficiency but doesn't explain why 5% more trips can handle 20% more passengers without increasing delays. The financial aspect is irrelevant to whether the solution will actually prevent crowding-related delays.