For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito

[RonPurewal]

Ron, you are native speaker and it is possible the there is some step which the native do unconciously.

critical reasoning is concerned with logic, not with linguistic expression. provided that you are reasonably proficient in english, your native language is irrelevant.

we, the non native, want you to detail your process of thought for a question, specifically for this question.

i know i've written this (to you in particular) on many previous posts -- but it's worth repeating again: it is impossible to come up with "formulas" or specific "rules" for critical reasoning.
in fact, this is precisely why critical reasoning is on the exam: it can't be conquered by memorization, or by going through any sort of routine. you have to consider the particulars of each situation individually.

[bushratabassum77]

Hi,

After reading the whole thread, I am convinced that C is the right choice although I went with B initially.
But just to understand the CR concepts fully, which one would be the OA if it was an evaluate question instead of strengthen question,

Will not B be the correct answer in that case?

Please reply this will help me in understanding the difference between evaluate and strengthen questions.

Regards,

[jlucero]

Hi,

After reading the whole thread, I am convinced that C is the right choice although I went with B initially.
But just to understand the CR concepts fully, which one would be the OA if it was an evaluate question instead of strengthen question,

Will not B be the correct answer in that case?

Please reply this will help me in understanding the difference between evaluate and strengthen questions.

Regards,

Conclusion: damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly

Would knowing in (B) whether buildings are threatened by other pollution help to answer whether damage from bus exhaust will diminish? No. Only things related to the bus exhaust are relevant to the conclusion stated.

For the most part, assumption, evaluate, strengthen & weaken questions all revolve around the same assumptions & questions.

[resolehtmai]

For years the beautiful Renaissance buildings in Palitito have been damaged by exhaust from many tour buses that come to the city. There has been little parking space, so most buses have idled at the curb during each stop on their tour, and idling produces as much exhaust as driving. The city has now provided parking that accomodates a third of the tour buses, so damage to Palitito's buildings from the buses' exhaust will diminish significantly.

D) Most tourists come to Palitito by tour bus than by any other single means of transportation.

Suppose the conclusion omits from the buses' exhaust
and just states "damage to Palitito's buildings will diminish significantly"
In this case, is option D a valid strengthener? Coz it eliminates the possibility of alternate causes of pollution?

[RonPurewal]

Suppose the conclusion omits from the buses' exhaust
and just states "damage to Palitito's buildings will diminish significantly"
In this case, is option D a valid strengthener? Coz it eliminates the possibility of alternate causes of pollution?

Please take the extra 1 second to type out words like "because". It makes the threads easier for everyone to read (and gives a more professional impression, too). Thanks.

--

No, even if you make that change, (d) is still not a strengthener. Even if there are other sources of exhaust, a reduction in the buses' exhaust should still logically cause an overall reduction. The only way that won't happen is if the other sources of exhaust increase.

If you made that edit AND choice (d) said that other sources of exhaust are increasing, then, yes. But by that point you're basically dealing with an entirely different problem.

[soumya2022]

Dear Mentor,

Please explain the logic behind the correct choice C. Although I was able to arrive at the correct choice by POE, I could not figure out the exact relevance of that sentence. Request you to kindly assist.


Thank you
Regards
Soumya

[RonPurewal]

According to choice C, the buses spend less than 25% of the time actually in transit.

Therefore, they spend more than 75% of the time (= the rest of the time) just idling.

That's a LOT of idling. So, if the plan succeeds, we know that its effect will be significant.

(If the buses only spent, say, 5% of the time idling, then the plan wouldn't have much of an effect. In that case, most of the pollution would come from buses in transit, which would be unaffected by the plan.)

[harika.apu]

According to choice C, the buses spend less than 25% of the time actually in transit.

Therefore, they spend more than 75% of the time (= the rest of the time) just idling.

That's a LOT of idling. So, if the plan succeeds, we know that its effect will be significant.

(If the buses only spent, say, 5% of the time idling, then the plan wouldn't have much of an effect. In that case, most of the pollution would come from buses in transit, which would be unaffected by the plan.)

Hello Ron ,
I understand option C is correct.
But still the parking could be provided only for 1/3 of tour buses
So, how can it is possible to diminish the damage from tour buses significantly ?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

a 33 percent reduction is clearly 'significant'.

[VikrantS137]

Most tourists come to Palitito by tour bus -- is irrelevant

The stimulus talks ONLY about the buses. So, it does not matter whether 1 tourist or some tourists or many tourists or all tourists come by bus.

Is my reasoning for elimination of D correct?

[RonPurewal]

Most tourists come to Palitito by tour bus -- is irrelevant

The stimulus talks ONLY about the buses. So, it does not matter whether 1 tourist or some tourists or many tourists or all tourists come by bus.

Is my reasoning for elimination of D correct?

correct; it's a FACT that the buses are causing the problem described.
even if very few tourists come by bus ... this is still a FACT. we KNOW that the buses are causing the problem, so it doesn't matter how many (or how few) tourists they might be carrying.

[ManjunathD921]

I was stuck between C & D for this question.

My Reasoning for D : Because many Tourist use bus as single means of transport than any other. More buses have to be used in Palitito and hence providing a space for parking would strengthen the argument.

Let me know on the above reasoning.

Thanks,
Manju

[RonPurewal]

I was stuck between C & D for this question.

My Reasoning for D : Because many Tourist use bus as single means of transport than any other. More buses have to be used in Palitito and hence providing a space for parking would strengthen the argument.

Let me know on the above reasoning.

Thanks,
Manju

'more'?
more than what?

the point is "Buses are causing a problem."
we don't care what fraction of tourist traffic is represented by those buses, because ... the buses are causing a problem. they're causing the same problem regardless of whether they account for 1 per cent or 99 per cent of the tourists.

[RonPurewal]

analogy:
let's say a city's trains run all day and all night.

A large number of people live in apartments situated near the railroads. The trains run frequently even at night, so these people tend to sleep poorly.
A new proposal calls for the city to halve the number of trains that run between 11pm and 5am. If this measure is adopted, people who live near the trains will sleep better.

Most train passengers ride at night.
Few train passengers ride at night.
Most people in the city commute by train.
Few people in the city commute by train.
.. all completely irrelevant.
hopefully this is clear.
the point is that, RIGHT NOW, there are X number of trains that are constantly waking people up. this fact is not affected by any of the things above.

[ManjunathD921]

Thanks a lot for the reply. Below is my understanding .. Just to make sure. Because this a kind of pattern GMAC uses to construct wrong answers. And i spend more time on these answers before eliminating.

When I meant by " More buses have to be used ....." is more than existing buses. My perception was many tourists using ONLY buses means more buses required to transport them, so more exhaust from them.

After reading your reply, I realized that , there are already a X number of buses, which the problem focuses on, and because of less parking space buses have to idle, and the exhaust released is damaging the buildings. If there will more buses or less in future because of XYZ reason is irrelevant to this question.

Let me know if my understanding is proper, this will help for other questions too..