Hutonian Government Official: Federal law

[poonamchiK]

Hutonian Government Official: Federal law requires truck drivers to take a long break after driving for ten hours, but truck drivers frequently do not comply. Since the public rest areas along our highways cannot accommodate all the drivers needing a break, we plan to build more rest areas to increase the rate of compliance.

Hutonian Business Representative: But if the parking lots around our businesses are considered, there are more than enough parking places.

Which of the following, if true about Hutonia, would provide a reason for persisting with the government official's plan despite the objection?

(A) Public parking areas are evenly distributed along the highways.

(B) Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour.

(C) In comparison to public rest areas, private parking lots near highways tend to be time-consuming for drivers to reach.

(D) Even when rest areas are available, some truck drivers park in places, such as highway access ramps, where their trucks are likely to cause accidents.

(E) Some public parking areas, particularly those on heavily traveled roads, are substantially larger than others.

OA : C
I took a D and it was wrong. Pls some1 explain why is tht so.
Where does public and private parking area come into picture?

[tim]

the problem with D is that it tells us truckers aren't necessarily inclined to use the rest areas even when they are available, so building more won't necessarily help. the correct answer has nothing to do with private versus public parking areas but rather whether they are easy to get to..

[poonamchiK]

the problem with D is that it tells us truckers aren't necessarily inclined to use the rest areas even when they are available, so building more won't necessarily help. the correct answer has nothing to do with private versus public parking areas but rather whether they are easy to get to..

Hey Tim,
thx for the reply. But i am still wondering tht where are we talking about our easy access to public or private parking areas. Hence i struck it out since I thought this option was irrelevant.

The correct ans needs to be more in terms of a parking lot which makes these drivers compliant with the 10 hr rule.

Pls help.
Thx

P

[RonPurewal]

The correct ans needs to be more in terms of a parking lot which makes these drivers compliant with the 10 hr rule.

first --
OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" "shouldn't the official answer actually do this?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "shouldn't it do X?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

--

now for the discussion:

if a question starts with
"Which of the following, if true..."
then the correct answer will ALWAYS be OUTSIDE THE CURRENT SCOPE of the argument!

in these problems, you will have to make common sense assumptions, and you will have to interpret statements and their consequences in the most probable way. if you try to solve these types of problems with formal rules and logic, you will not be able to solve any of them.

--

note the prompt:
...provide a reason for persisting with the government official's plan despite the objection?

--> this means that we have to show that the objection is invalid.

if choice (c) is true, then the most probable interpretation is that truckers will not take advantage of this option for the same reason they aren't taking advantage of it now -- because the private parking lots are too far away. in this case, since the private parking lots already exist and the truckers aren't using them for the reason stated here, we can throw away the objection.

[poonamchiK]

Well done Ron.
Thx a ton. It helps clear the murky waters a lot.

Best,
P

[jnelson0612]

Outstanding post, Ron.

[750plus]

Team,

1. Can you explain what B is trying to say? Though I got to the right answer in 02.21 minutes, the extra time that I took was because of this choice. I could not understand it even when I marked the answer and moved to the next question !

B: Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour

2. How should one deal with such choices or rather a situation where one cannot understand or see the effect of one of the choices in a CR.

Regards
Rajat Gugnani

[poonamchiK]

Dear Rajat,
Pls do not distract from the main topic.
Here the question is asking - why do you think that the govt official will continue to persist with the plan to build more rest areas EVEN THOUGH the business representative objected to the govt official's plan?

Basically what B is trying to say is - there will be non compliace if the trip is more than 10 hours (in simple terms). But the question is talking about only 10 hours. So where did the more than 10 hours come? This will be FALSE choice.

C on the other hand - Private parking lots (which the business representative is talking about) - are far to reach - a reason for non compliance. And so to make it easier for rest - the place must be accessible and nearby. And this is the govt official's argument / reply to the business representative.

Cheers.

[750plus]

Dear Rajat,
Pls do not distract from the main topic.
Here the question is asking - why do you think that the govt official will continue to persist with the plan to build more rest areas EVEN THOUGH the business representative objected to the govt official's plan?

Basically what B is trying to say is - there will be non compliace if the trip is more than 10 hours (in simple terms). But the question is talking about only 10 hours. So where did the more than 10 hours come? This will be FALSE choice.

C on the other hand - Private parking lots (which the business representative is talking about) - are far to reach - a reason for non compliance. And so to make it easier for rest - the place must be accessible and nearby. And this is the govt official's argument / reply to the business representative.

Cheers.

Thanks poonamchiK

Well, I am not deviating from the topic. My intent was to just understand what B is trying to say and what is its effect. I, in the first place, could not understand the meaning of the choice B.

I am still not good with what B is trying to say

(B) Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour.

What is that bold part doing ?

[RonPurewal]

'x exceeds y'
... means x > y

'x exceeds y by 3'
... means x = y + 3

'x exceeds y by less than 1'
... means x = y + (some positive margin that's less than 1)
... in other words, y < x < y + 1

--

so
Blah blah blah exceeds 10 hours by less than one hour
... means 10 < blah blah blah < 11

[RonPurewal]

...but, even if you have absolutely no clue what choice B means, you should still have no trouble eliminating it.

B is about the length of truck drivers' breaks.
the length of breaks is totally irrelevant to this argument, so, bang, B is gone.

[750plus]

'x exceeds y'
... means x > y

'x exceeds y by 3'
... means x = y + 3

'x exceeds y by less than 1'
... means x = y + (some positive margin that's less than 1)
... in other words, y < x < y + 1

--

so
Blah blah blah exceeds 10 hours by less than one hour
... means 10 < blah blah blah < 11

Awesome

[750plus]

Team,

1. Can you explain what B is trying to say? Though I got to the right answer in 02.21 minutes, the extra time that I took was because of this choice. I could not understand it even when I marked the answer and moved to the next question !

B: Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour

2. How should one deal with such choices or rather a situation where one cannot understand or see the effect of one of the choices in a CR.

Regards
Rajat Gugnani

One of my question in blue is left un addressed.

Your highness

Please guide.

[RonPurewal]

for that, i don't have much to offer beyond simple common sense:

PLAN A:
try to figure out whatever you can about the problematic statement(s). then, use that information to the greatest extent possible.

PLAN B:
guess.

(here PLAN A is sufficient to deal with choice B. even if you don't understand the niceties of that sentence, you can still say 'Hey, this is something about HOW MANY HOURS are in a 'break'... and, well, i just don't care about that.'

[750plus]

for that, i don't have much to offer beyond simple common sense:

PLAN A:
try to figure out whatever you can about the problematic statement(s). then, use that information to the greatest extent possible.

PLAN B:
guess.

(here PLAN A is sufficient to deal with choice B. even if you don't understand the niceties of that sentence, you can still say 'Hey, this is something about HOW MANY HOURS are in a 'break'... and, well, i just don't care about that.'

Thanks, i have noted your point.