According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making

[hmgmat]

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.

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?

(A) 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.
(B) Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines.
(C) 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.
(D) 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.
(E) The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.

This CR question is from GMATPrep test#1 but also appears in OG11(yellow). I hope that it is okay to post since it appears in GMATPrep. If not, please delete. But I would like to hear the answer for my questions below ;-)

I picked C but the answer is D.

OG explanation states that the revenue lost because of token hoarding is insignificant compared to the revenue over 5 yrs of increased tolls. But this explanation assumes that the increase is smaller than a certain percentage. I thought that we wouldn't allow to assume anything that is unstated.

On the other hands, choice D implies that it is likely that the % of automobiles go on that slightly longer route will be higher than the past one (almost 20%) because the road condition of the alternative route is better now.

So at the end, OG assumes that the loss in revenue due to what is mentioned in choice D is MORE than the loss in revenue due to what is mentioned in C. I am not sure why this kind of assumption is allowed...

This one is an official question, and so there is no point to argue its correctness. I just want to know what I should write down on my note about this question, so I won't fall into a similar trap (well, I am not sure what the trap is here too) GMAC setup.

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

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.

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?

(A) 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.
(B) Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines.
(C) 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.
(D) 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.
(E) The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.

This CR question is from GMATPrep test#1 but also appears in OG11(yellow). I hope that it is okay to post since it appears in GMATPrep. If not, please delete. But I would like to hear the answer for my questions below ;-)

I picked C but the answer is D.

OG explanation states that the revenue lost because of token hoarding is insignificant compared to the revenue over 5 yrs of increased tolls. But this explanation assumes that the increase is smaller than a certain percentage. I thought that we wouldn't allow to assume anything that is unstated.

On the other hands, choice D implies that it is likely that the % of automobiles go on that slightly longer route will be higher than the past one (almost 20%) because the road condition of the alternative route is better now.

So at the end, OG assumes that the loss in revenue due to what is mentioned in choice D is MORE than the loss in revenue due to what is mentioned in C. I am sure why this kind of assumption is allowed...

This one is an official question, and so there is no point to argue its correctness. I just want to know what I should write down on my note about this question, so I won't fall into a similar trap (well, I am not sure what the trap is here too) GMAC setup.

Thanks in advance.

hmm, interesting. i guess that one takeaway we can get here is that, if everything else seems equal, then numerical statistics add weight to the argument.

could you do us a favor and say which # this is in og11, if you would? if this question is also on gmatprep, then i think you are ok (as long as you don't actually reproduce the answer explanation, which won't appear in the gmatprep software).
that way i could take a look at the explanations and see whether i can glean any more nuggets of gold.

[hmgmat]

Hi Ron,

This prep question is the same as OG11#114(yellow).

[stock.mojo11]

My 2 cents

C is saying that many commuters buy tokens. But does not tell how many of them will buy and for how many years. Both numbers could be negligible and wont make a dent or all commuters buy tokens for 5 years and the plan to raise funds will not work. We dont know is the issue that acts against this answer choice. Yet another GMATism.

D is saying that the route lost 20% when tolls increased last time. Now that route has gotten better and it is fair to expect that more than 20% commuters will use that route. We know that plan to raise funds will fall short in such a case.

I had my share of agony with CR. :)

[hmgmat]

My 2 cents

C is saying that many commuters buy tokens. But does not tell how many of them will buy and for how many years. Both numbers could be negligible and wont make a dent or all commuters buy tokens for 5 years and the plan to raise funds will not work. We dont know is the issue that acts against this answer choice. Yet another GMATism.

D is saying that the route lost 20% when tolls increased last time. Now that route has gotten better and it is fair to expect that more than 20% commuters will use that route. We know that plan to raise funds will fall short in such a case.

I had my share of agony with CR. :)

Hi, if I understand your post correctly, you are trying to say that if there are 2 choices, one points out a well-defined damage (i.e. 20 or more percent) and another one doesn't, then we should go for the one with well-defined damage even if the damage seems small (say 1%) because the former for sure has a certain degree of damage but the damage of the latter is uncertain?

[RonPurewal]

Hi, if I understand your post correctly, you are trying to say that if there are 2 choices, one points out a well-defined damage (i.e. 20 or more percent) and another one doesn't, then we should go for the one with well-defined damage even if the damage seems small (say 1%) because the former for sure has a certain degree of damage but the damage of the latter is uncertain?

no.
if you have a hard number (such as your 1%) that is CLEARLY INSIGNIFICANT, then you should NOT pick that answer.

here's an analogy:
let's say that you need $100 to get your car out of a towing lot.

would you rather have $80, or "a decent amount of money"?
well, you'd rather have "a decent amount of money", since $80 is clearly not enough.

would you rather have $120, or "a decent amount of money"?
well, you'd rather have $120, since that is enough.

that's how it works.

[RonPurewal]

in any case, it's pretty clear that (d) has a bigger effect than does (c) in this case, for the following TWO reasons:

(1) even if token hoarding does occur, it is extremely unlikely that the effects of token hoarding will amount to 20% OF ALL TOLLS PAID FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS.
that's a lot of tokens.

(2) perhaps more importantly:
IF TOKENS ARE HOARDED, then all that is lost is the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW FARES. this is just a % of the fare, perhaps even a small %.
on the other hand,
IF COMMUTERS SWITCH ROUTES, then THE ENTIRE FARE IS LOST.

if you combine these 2 factors, then there's no question that (d) has a bigger effect than does (c).

[hungpv]

Here my reasons
First, the think we consider here is the EFFECTIVENESS of the plan
As in (c)...to postpone the effects of the increase => still have effect, just postpone =>not the answer
But in (d), it's likely that if tolls are raised, another % of commuter will switch to the alternative route. => doubt on the effectiveness.
So (d) is the answer

[RonPurewal]

Here my reasons
First, the think we consider here is the EFFECTIVENESS of the plan
As in (c)...to postpone the effects of the increase => still have effect, just postpone =>not the answer
But in (d), it's likely that if tolls are raised, another % of commuter will switch to the alternative route. => doubt on the effectiveness.
So (d) is the answer

this is more or less equivalent to what i wrote above -- yep

[yuanhongzhi0830]

Hi Experts.
I put my original reasoning here about choice D:
Because choice D cited a past fact about how people responded to the strategy, it has no relevance to the current situation.
If i accepted that the past could be a sign of future, I would agree D outweigh C.
So here I need some extended knowledge:
Ususally in a weakening question, is a choice including a fact that in the past the argument failed to be true a correct answer?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Experts.
I put my original reasoning here about choice D:
Because choice D cited a past fact about how people responded to the strategy, it has no relevance to the current situation.

... but you're looking at essentially the same situation again, so, yes, it's relevant.

remember, you have to use real-world sense on these problems.
if you saw this situation on the TV news, and your friend said, "Hey, remember what happened last time there was a toll hike?" ... you would clearly not say "that's irrelevant". because, in this situation, it's not.

there's not going to be a "rule" for whether this sort of thing is relevant; you're going to have to judge each individual situation independently.
...which is the whole point of these problems in the first place.

[yuanhongzhi0830]

Hi Experts.
I put my original reasoning here about choice D:
Because choice D cited a past fact about how people responded to the strategy, it has no relevance to the current situation.

... but you're looking at essentially the same situation again, so, yes, it's relevant.

remember, you have to use real-world sense on these problems.
if you saw this situation on the TV news, and your friend said, "Hey, remember what happened last time there was a toll hike?" ... you would clearly not say "that's irrelevant". because, in this situation, it's not.

there's not going to be a "rule" for whether this sort of thing is relevant; you're going to have to judge each individual situation independently.
...which is the whole point of these problems in the first place.

Well noted, thanks =)

[yuanhongzhi0830]

Hi Experts.
I put my original reasoning here about choice D:
Because choice D cited a past fact about how people responded to the strategy, it has no relevance to the current situation.

... but you're looking at essentially the same situation again, so, yes, it's relevant.

remember, you have to use real-world sense on these problems.
if you saw this situation on the TV news, and your friend said, "Hey, remember what happened last time there was a toll hike?" ... you would clearly not say "that's irrelevant". because, in this situation, it's not.

there's not going to be a "rule" for whether this sort of thing is relevant; you're going to have to judge each individual situation independently.
...which is the whole point of these problems in the first place.

Well noted, thanks =)

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

Just keep that in mind -- Don't ever try to make "rules" for CR. Just don't do it. Massive fail.

Trust your own human judgment; just think a bit more precisely than usual. And don't forget the purpose/task incumbent on you in each problem.

[madhu1989]

Hi Ron,

But choice D states that, the commuters avoided the bridge when the tolls were increased PREVIOUSLY. What is the likelihood that the same will happen when the tolls are increased now? Why should we assume that the increase in toll will result in the same outcome as before? Kindly clarify.

Thanks,
Madhu