Loading...
Nalmed Province's plan is to reduce highway congestion by expanding the commuter rail system, so giving more people the option of travelling by train. When a recent opinion poll presented this plan to province residents, they overwhelmingly favored it, even though they knew that enacting the plan would mean substantial tax increases. Consequently, the plan, if enacted, is very likely to succeed, because if the people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit.
The inference made from the poll results is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Nalmed Province's plan is to reduce highway congestion by expanding the commuter rail system, so giving more people the option of travelling by train. |
|
| When a recent opinion poll presented this plan to province residents, they overwhelmingly favored it, even though they knew that enacting the plan would mean substantial tax increases. |
|
| Consequently, the plan, if enacted, is very likely to succeed, because if the people are prepared to pay, they expect to reap the benefit. |
|
The argument starts by describing a transportation plan, then presents poll data showing public support despite tax costs, and concludes this support means the plan will succeed.
The commuter rail expansion plan is very likely to succeed if enacted.
The argument assumes that people's willingness to pay higher taxes (shown in the poll) directly translates to the plan's success because people who pay expect benefits. This creates a causal link between poll support and actual plan effectiveness.
Misc - This is asking us to identify the flaw or weakness in the inference made from the poll results. We need to find what makes the reasoning vulnerable to criticism.
The key claim is about the causal connection between poll support (willingness to pay taxes) and actual plan success (people using the trains). The argument assumes poll responses translate directly to real behavior and plan effectiveness.
Since this is a 'vulnerable to criticism' question, we need to identify gaps or flaws in the logical reasoning. The argument jumps from 'people support the plan in a poll' to 'the plan will succeed.' We should look for ways this inference could be problematic - like differences between poll responses and actual behavior, or other factors that could prevent success even if people are willing to pay.
This points out that once congestion is reduced, people might return to driving. While this could be a long-term issue, it doesn't directly challenge the inference made FROM the poll results. The argument's flaw isn't about what happens after success, but about whether the poll support actually predicts success in the first place.
This exposes the core logical flaw in the inference. The poll shows people favor the plan, but each person could be thinking 'this is great because OTHER people will use trains and reduce MY driving congestion.' If everyone thinks this way, nobody actually switches to trains, and the plan fails despite poll support. This directly challenges the assumption that poll support translates to behavioral change needed for success.
This suggests opponents might still use the rail system. However, this doesn't weaken the inference - if anything, it could strengthen the case for success by adding more potential users beyond those who already support the plan.
This discusses why opponents opposed the plan (reasons other than taxes). But the argument already accounts for tax concerns and focuses on supporters who accept the tax burden. The reasons for opposition don't affect the inference about why the plan will succeed based on supporter willingness to pay.
This suggests people overestimate their tax burden. If anything, this would strengthen the argument - if actual taxes are lower than expected, people should be even more willing to support and benefit from the plan, making success more likely.