OG-119 (没有讨论过) - ChaseDream

According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically. The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls on the two high-way bridges along the route the rail line serves. Although the proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority’s plan for securing the necessary funds should be rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority’s plan to finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls?

(A) Before the authority increases tolls on any of the area bridges, it is required by law to hold public hearings at which objections to the proposed increase can be raised.

(B) Whenever bridge tolls are increased, the authority must pay a private contractor to adjust the automated toll-collecting machines.

(C) Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect, many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase.

(D) When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.

(E) The chairman of the authority is a member of the Tristate Automobile Club that has registered strong opposition to the proposed toll increase.

答案是D. 如何判断这个20%是不是significant呢? 比如原价$1, 现在涨到$3, 这样即使有20%的人绕开, 依然还有(3-1)x80%=240%的收入啊.

题目并没有给出effectiveness的具体定义, 没有说明到底钱收少了影响大, 还是钱收晚了影响大,所以C答案也可能是正确答案. 并且C中人们也可以一次就把2到3年的费提前交了, 这样的话与20%比较也说不上谁减少的多.

Increasing bridge tolls might not increase revenues if such increases prompt a significant percentage of regular bridge users to switch to alternative routes. Choice D says that a previous increase prompted such switches. Choice D, by establishing a strong precedent for commuters’ responding to higher tolls by avoiding them altogether, raises doubts about the plan’s effectiveness and is thus the best answer.

Choices A and E suggest that the plan might face opposition but not that it will be defeated not that the anticipated revenue will not be generated. Therefore neither A nor E is correct. Weighed against five years’ projected revenues, the considerations raised in choices B and C would not have a significant impact. Thus neither B nor C is correct.

至于你举的例子，我觉得很可能原来涨价达不到你说的程度啊，那么现在涨了象你说的这么高，会有更多人改道的

I think that C can also reduce their profit. They plan to increase toll fee for five year, if many people buy cheap token for one year in advance, effectiveness still be damaged.

Now my question is that whethere there is a ONLY ONE CORRECT answer or there is a BEST answer in CR.

D肯定削弱，在美国，美国同学一般不会允许一个Authority随便涨价的，所以肯定要做类似听证一类的东西，拿出具体数据来说明涨价多少就可以，他们不允许借着啥啥借口来随便涨价剥削普通同学，因此，定出来的涨价计划是会“可丁可卯的”，如果有20%的偏差，就相当大了......这个肯定会削弱

我觉得这句话说明了Authority预期的效率，如果有20%的regular commuter traffic改道，Authority则达不到他想要达到的效率

以下是引用hypo在2005-10-14 12:10:00的发言：

C不会削弱，时间问题极少能构成削弱，除非限定时间

There is a time frame-5 years, so if someone buy token for 1 year in advance, then he only need to pay increased token for 4 years, it follows that he paid less than expected.

以下是引用Melody11在2005-10-14 15:10:00的发言：

“over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls”

我觉得这句话说明了Authority预期的效率，如果有20%的regular commuter traffic改道，Authority则达不到他想要达到的效率

I still believe that buying cheap token can weaken the argument. Only by common sense will I accept that "20% lost" is a better answer.