Having an efficient, attractive subway system makes good economic sense. So, the city needs to purchase new subway c...

davealts November 4, 2019

just understand that you need to determine that the new subway cars would be attractive for the argument to follow logically. That is what the argument is missing. If NSC--> A this argument becomes solid.

tablazo15 February 9, 2020

Why is C not the answer? If another option open to the city makes better economic sense would this not supersede the new subway cars?

shunhe May 4, 2020

Hi @tablazo15,

Thanks for the question! Let’s take a look at the argument first. We know that having an efficient, attractive subway system makes good economic sense. The argument then concludes that the city should purchase new subway cars, since the city should always do what makes good economic sense. So (E) is going to be right here because if the city should always do what makes good economic sense, if it’s true that new subway cars are needed to have a subway system that’s efficient and attractive, then the city has to buy new subway cars, which will allow it to have EASS, which will make good economic sense.

Now (C), on the other hand, talks about the idea of making “better” economic sense. There’s a few problems with this. Something might make “better” economic sense but still not be “good economic sense,” it could just be one better and one worse kind of “bad” economic sense. Also, it compares this option to other investment options. But there’s not really a dilemma where it seems like the city can’t do both. Maybe it’s the case that two routes of action both make good economic sense, in which case the city should do both of them. Either way, the argument is about good economic sense, not better economic sense, and that’s why we eliminate (C).

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.