Q20 - Railroad spokesperson: Of course it is a difficult

[raymondcezar]

Hello,

When I was drilling, I was able to eliminate A, C, and E. I ended up choosing B, the correct answer, just because, compared to D, it seemed as a better option. However, when I went back to review this question and the answer choices, I still had trouble with eliminating D.

Actually, thinking about it a little more, I see that it might just be a premise booster.

Could someone please help in explaining why D is not the right answer?

[tommywallach]

Hey Raymond,

Happy to help! This is an assumption question, so let's start by looking at the core.

Conclusion: Quality of service has been satisfactory.
Premise: Number of passengers has increased.

As you hopefully noticed, this is a terrifically terrible argument, so there are a lot of problems. The most obvious is that an increase in passengers doesn't necessitate customer satisfaction; the increase could be based on simple demographics (population increases), or a relatively low price taking people from air travel.

(A) is irrelevant. As you can see from our core, taxes have nothing to do with this argument.

(B) CORRECT. This connects up quality of service with actual passengers.

(C) goes too far. We don't need to know that quality has improved. We only need to know that quality has remained at a high enough level to keep customers coming/draw new customers. For all we know, quality could have decreased!

(D) is similar to (A). When you really break down the core, you see it has nothing to do with taxes or subsidies. These are just distractions, built to drive you towards these answer choices. However, I wouldn't say it's a premise booster. We don't know if it's impossible (a very strong word) to reduce subsidies without affecting quality.

(E) once again brings up revenues/subsidies, which aren't relevant. It doesn't even mention quality!

Hope that helps. The key is always to focus on the core of the argument!

-t

[redcobra21]

Hey Tommy,

Could you show how the negation of the correct answer would weaken the argument?

I get: "More people are riding the trains, no one refuses to travel by train if they are dissatisfied with the quality of service --> our quality of service is satisfactory." But I can't see how the conclusion is weakened. Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Hey Red Cobra,

Happy to help! The opposite of "some people" is "nobody". So the negation of (B) is:

Nobody will refuse to travel by train if they're dissatisfied with the quality of the service.

That means that quality isn't important to people: they just want to get from point A to point B, and they'll pay for it no matter what. If that were true, then it would be insane for the spokesperson to base his conclusion that quality is high on the fact that more and more people are taking the train.

Make sense?

-t

[MMeissner947]

I have a problem with B. It doesnt crush the argument. Just because nobody will refuse to travel based on dissatisfaction, doesnt mean they will travel on it at all, nor does it mean they will not consider satisfaction levels when deciding on transportation. They just wont let it be the deciding factor of when not choosing a train. THerefore, i see the spokesperson's conclusion as not being antithetical to the negation of B, but as still consistent.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're operating with a slightly off notion of what the Negation Test is.

Try using this standard. It's hard to go wrong:
Necessary Assumption = Which answer, if negated, most weakens

You don't have to contradict a conclusion to be an assumption.

Example:
Bob applied to UCLA.
Thus, Bob wants to go to a good school.

Clearly, this is assuming UCLA is a good school. If we negated that, and we knew that UCLA is NOT a good school, does that CONTRADICT the idea that Bob wants to go to a good school?

Wouldn't his hypothetical desire to go to a good school be compatible with his applying to a not-good school (UCLA)?

Sure! But when we say, "UCLA is not a good school", we're badly weakening the argument. That was the entire leg the author's conclusion was standing on.

Similarly, this author's conclusion about maintaining satisfying service leans completely on the evidence of "more passengers".

If you negate (D), and "unsatisfactory service NEVER leads someone to stop using the train", then the evidence is worthless. Having "at least as many" or "more passengers" doesn't help us say anything about the quality of service, if the quality of service could never lower our number of passengers.

Bob's app to UCLA could never support the claim that he desires a good school, if UCLA is not an example of a good school.

[SherrilynM911]

I still have difficulty understanding why E is not correct. The spokesperson says that "it's difficult to maintain quality of service at the same time that the amount of $ is reduced," thereby introducing a relationship where the lack of $ causes the difficulty of maintenance. Then the spokesperson goes on to state that because the number of passengers has gone up, therefore the quality of service is still pretty good.

Why does more passengers = a still-good level of service? Doesn't E bridge that gap, by offering the suggestion that revenue from the passengers offsets the lost $ from the subsidies, THEREFORE quality of service can still be maintained?

What am I missing here?