Conclusion: the Transit Authority's proposal to increase fares by 40% must be implemented.
Why? Even though the fare increase will impose a hardship on some bus and subway riders, if the fare is not increased, service will have to be cut drastically, and this would result in an unacceptably large loss of ridership.
So, how is the author making her argument? Well, she explains the result of an alternative option than the one she's advocating for, i.e. she explains that if the fare is not increased, then it would result in an unacceptably large loss of ridership. As you can see, she never actually addresses why her proposal should be chosen, rather why choosing an alternative proposal is not a good idea.
Thus, answer choice (C): "It arrives at its conclusion indirectly by providing reasons for rejecting an alternative course of action," is the correct answer.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
CeciOctober 19, 2018
i was caught between c and d.. why not d?
MehranOctober 20, 2018
Hi @Ceci, thanks for your post. This is a Method of Reasoning question that asks you to identify the argumentative strategy used in the stimulus. The stimulus contains an argument. The conclusion is that the Transit Authority's proposal to increase fares by 40 percent must be implemented. The argument acknowledges that such an increase would impose a hardship on some riders, but it points out that if fares are not increased, service will have to be cut severely, resulting in an unacceptably large loss of ridership. This is why (C) is correct - the stimulus arrives at its conclusion (that the proposal to increase fees by 40% must be implemented) indirectly, but providing reasons (an unacceptably large loss of ridership) for rejecting an alternative course of action (not increasing the fares).
Answer choice (D) is wrong because the argument does not identify "objections" against the alternative (not increasing the fares), nor does it explain why such "objections" would not apply to the recommended course of action (increasing the fares).
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any additional questions.
willsFebruary 26, 2019
Why is D not the correct answer? I understand C but I can't understand why not D
RaviFebruary 28, 2019
@Will-Wester,
Happy to help.
You're asking about (D) vs. (C). Let's take a look.
(D) says, "It explains why the recommended course of action would not be subject to the objections raised against the alternative."
The primary objection that the argument raises against the alternative scenario is that there would be an unacceptably large loss of ridership. Based on the stimulus, we know that the author's suggestion (to implement the proposal) would avoid the unacceptable decrease in ridership, but we still don't know why it would avoid it, as the argument doesn't give us an explanation for why.
The recommended course of action mentioned in (D) is raising the fares, and the objection raised against the alternative is an unacceptably large loss of ridership. The argument tells us that fares must be raised if this loss of ridership is to be avoided, but we have no clue why this is. In order for (D) to be correct, the argument would have to have had another premise that explains the "why" of why raising fares wouldn't result in a huge loss of ridership.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
