标题: GWD6-Q33 求助 [打印本页]
作者: running2k 时间: 2012-7-6 06:55 标题: GWD6-Q33 求助
GWD-6-Q33**:
Crowding on Mooreville’s subway frequently leads to delays, because it is difficult for passengers to exit from the trains.
Subway ridership is projected to increase by 20 percent over the next 10 years.
The Metroville Transit Authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period.
Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for the officials’ prediction?
A.
By changing maintenance schedules, the Transit Authority can achieve the 5 percent increase in train trips without purchasing any new subway cars.
B.
The Transit Authority also plans a 5 percent increase in the number of bus trips on routes that connect to subways.
C.
For most commuters who use the subway system, there is no practical alternative public transportation available.
D.
Most of the projected increase in ridership is expected to occur in off-peak hours when trains are now sparsely used.
E.
The 5 percent increase in the number of train trips can be achieved without an equal increase in Transit Authority operational costs.
我觉得D 是WEAKEN 怎么会是SUPPORT 呢?
作者: monkeyjjl 时间: 2012-7-6 18:43
此题体现了GMAC的变态严格逻辑思路。
题：车很挤了已经，预计！还要有20%的客流增多；但是运营公司！只有5%多的车。所以政府！说不够，减缓不了拥挤。
问：政府咋这么有理呢？
D。预计的客流是在非高峰。
对啊，如果你预计的非高峰都有20%人流增多是对的，那么也许车不用多20%，也许5%就够了；但万一是在高峰的20%人流增多呢，那不就更得多车了么，说不定20%车多都不够。
那么政府确实是有道理的。
变态的题目。
作者: uniquenellier 时间: 2012-7-7 10:53
2楼的把题目都理解反了。。。
作者: ScentyGuy 时间: 2012-7-9 20:15
我原来也是按二楼地样理解的啊〜〜
作者: yknxhdsy 时间: 2012-7-10 05:54
二楼错在原文说Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure ，也就是说政府官员说足够了，可以减缓拥挤。政府官员是同意这个地铁公司的～
| 欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/) |
Powered by Discuz! 7.2 |