The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter.
“While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
My Response:
In the preceding statement ,the author claims that the trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of the highway maintenance cost and no property tax,and railways spend billions per year in maintaining and upgrading their facilities,government should lower the railways transportation taxes as its clearly more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping.Thought the author's claim may well have merit,the author presents a poorly reasoned argument,based on the several questionable premises and misguided assumptions.So based solely on the evidence citied by the author ,this argument is not only weak and unconvincing but also suffers from a number of flaws.
First of,the primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.The author cities that the railways spend billions per year in maintenance and upgrading their facilities.This doesn't provide any evidence as to why that much amount is spent on railways and not highway which is currently the primary mode of transportation and shipping of goods.It doesn't provide us with a sound reasoning as to what happens to the cost if the mode of transportation changes from roadways to railways.For example the cost of maintenance maybe directly proportional to the use of the railways.The author claims that the government should reduce the railways companies transportation taxes.What if the taxes paid is lower that the increase in maintenance cost .The author even cities the premises that railways are more environmentally sound that roadways.It doesn't address the problem and lacks the evidence to support it as to how .For example what if the pollution index generate by a train in higher than that of a truck.So the authors premises ,the basis for his argument ,lack's a legitimate evidentiary support and renders his conclusion unacceptable.
Secondly,the author makes several unproven and unwarranted assumption such as the railway taxes is less than the cost of the fuel the company while save .For example the cost of fuel for transportation via highway in currently $100 and the railway taxes is $500.Even if railway consume 1/3 of the fuel the company will save $66 whereas the taxes is $500 .So clearly the company will not change its mode of transportation to railways .The author even assumes that every place is connected by railways.For instance the company's current use highway because there are no railways that connect the two places i.e the places from where the goods are transported from and the place to where it is being transported.If that's the case the railway department will have to build new lines .Thus the author weakens his argument further by making assumptions and failing to provide any evidence supporting the correlation between his assumptions and his conclusion.
Finally ,while the author does have several key issues to address in his argument,some addition information would have strengthened this argument.For example providing evidence that other factor are not a primary reason for the use of highways.Premises supporting that the amount saved by the company on fuels will be more than the amount it pays on rail taxes and many more that would help evaluate the argument.
In summary,the argument is based on unsubstantiated premises and unproven assumptions ,leaving out several key issues to be addressed,making it unsound and unpersuasive.If the author included the aforementioned points instead of solely explaining that railways is better than roadways,the argument would not only be strengthened and bolstered but also be more through and convincing.
GMAT Forum