PT2.S2.Q06 - the transit authority's proposal to increase fares by 40%

hyelimparkhyelimpark Core Member
edited August 2022 in Logical Reasoning 42 karma

Could someone please help me with this question? I am confused why C is corrrect; although I agree that author does provide reasons for rejecting an alternative course of action, I don't think he/she arrives at their conclusion 'indirectly' as the stimulus says at the beginning that the proposal to increase fares by 40% 'must be implemented.' surely this suggests that conclusion of this stimulus is direct?

Comments

  • Claudia77Claudia77 Member
    106 karma

    I think you're referring to PT 3 S2 Q06, not PT 2, so I'm going to go off of that question.

    In the stimulus, the author states their conclusion (fare must be increased by 40%), and then provides evidence against an alternative course of action (not increasing the fare). In doing so, the author is indirectly supporting the conclusion that the fare must be increased by 40%. The word "indirectly" applies here because the author didn't give evidence that directly supports their exact conclusion - nowhere in the stimulus did the author provide evidence that a fare increase of 40% specifically (rather than, say, 10% or 20%) is needed. What they did do, however, is indirectly support their conclusion by showing that not increasing the fare would have negative consequences. For the author to have directly arrived at their conclusion, they would have needed to address why the fare must be increased by 40%.

    I hope this helps, I'm happy to clarify further if needed.

  • hyelimparkhyelimpark Core Member
    42 karma

    This is sO helpful-thanks so much!!

Sign In or Register to comment.