Self-paced
Conclusion The Transit Authority’s proposal to increase fares by 40 percent must be implemented. ███████████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ █ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████
Argument Breakdown: Eliminating Options
The argument concludes that we must implement a proposal to increase transit fares by 40 percent, even though this would harm some transit users. So we must we do it? Because there would be unacceptable consequences if we don't: severe service cuts and a significant loss of ridership.
We can see that the argument proceeds by eliminating an unacceptable option to arrive at the remaining alternative of raising fares. Even without direct support for the fare increase, the argument shows us it's the only reasonable choice.
6.
The passage employs which one ██ ███ █████████ █████████████ ███████████
a
It offers evidence ████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ █████████████
The argument in fact explicitly acknowledges the undesirable consequences of raising fares: the hardship doing so will impose on some transit users. Although the alternative is worse, the argument never claims that the fare increase is harmless.
b
It shows that █ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █ ██████████████
The argument shows that the alternative position is unacceptable, but not because it's contradictory. Instead, the alternative is just shown to have worse consequences than the fare increase.
c
It arrives at ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███████
The argument presents two possible choices: a fare increase, or severe service cuts. In order to support the former choice, the argument focuses on the unacceptable consequences of service cuts. By eliminating this option, the argument indirectly supports the fare increase plan.
d
It explains why ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████████
The argument doesn't address "objections" raised against either alternative. It discusses the likely consequences of each course of action, but we never hear from critics or objectors. The argument also doesn't really defend the proposal to increase fares, just shows that not increasing fares would be worse.
e
It justifies the ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████
The argument doesn't make any appeal to the past. It's purely discussing the consequences expected to result from two possible courses of action. We don't know if any similar actions have been taken in the past, let alone whether they were effective.