FeatureBus rapid transitLight railAverage trip speed22.4 mph28.1 mphStation spacing0.8 miles1.4 milesDaily ridership capacity15,000 passengers12,300 p...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
| Feature | Bus rapid transit | Light rail |
|---|---|---|
| Average trip speed | 22.4 mph | 28.1 mph |
| Station spacing | 0.8 miles | 1.4 miles |
| Daily ridership capacity | 15,000 passengers | 12,300 passengers |
| Construction cost per mile | $8.2 million | $47.6 million |
A transportation consultant analyzing urban mobility options reached a key conclusion about system design priorities. Speed-focused transit solutions, the consultant argued, would naturally sacrifice accessibility for efficiency. This trade-off appears in light rail systems, which utilize fixed tracks and position stations farther apart to minimize travel interruptions. By contrast, bus rapid transit maximizes community access through frequent stops along dedicated roadway lanes, though this approach may limit overall speed potential. The consultant's analysis suggested that light rail systems, given their design emphasis on speed optimization rather than maximum accessibility, should demonstrate both higher average trip speeds and greater distances between stations when compared to bus rapid transit systems.
Which choice best describes data from the table that support the consultant's hypothesis?
The light rail system had higher construction costs and lower daily capacity than the bus rapid transit system did.
The light rail system achieved faster average speeds and maintained greater station spacing than the bus rapid transit system did.
The bus rapid transit system and light rail system both provided substantial daily ridership capacity for urban areas.
The bus rapid transit system had more frequent stops and lower costs, but light rail offered significantly higher speeds.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "A transportation consultant analyzing urban mobility options reached a key conclusion about system design priorities." |
|
| "Speed-focused transit solutions, the consultant argued, would naturally sacrifice accessibility for efficiency." |
|
| "This trade-off appears in light rail systems, which utilize fixed tracks and position stations farther apart to minimize travel interruptions." |
|
| "By contrast, bus rapid transit maximizes community access through frequent stops along dedicated roadway lanes, though this approach may limit overall speed potential." |
|
| "The consultant's analysis suggested that light rail systems, given their design emphasis on speed optimization rather than maximum accessibility, should demonstrate both higher average trip speeds and greater distances between stations when compared to bus rapid transit systems." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: A transportation consultant concluded that transit systems face a fundamental trade-off between speed and accessibility, leading to the hypothesis that light rail should demonstrate higher speeds and greater station spacing compared to bus rapid transit.
Argument Flow: The consultant identified a core design trade-off in transit systems, illustrated this with light rail versus BRT examples, and concluded with a testable hypothesis about how this should appear in the data.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
- What's being asked? Which data from the table supports the consultant's hypothesis
- What type of answer do we need? Specific data points that confirm the consultant's prediction
- Any limiting keywords? Key requirement: We need data that backs up their specific prediction about speed and station spacing
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The consultant's hypothesis was specific: light rail systems should demonstrate both higher average trip speeds and greater distances between stations compared to bus rapid transit systems.
- So the correct answer needs to show:
- Light rail has higher average trip speeds than BRT
- Light rail has greater station spacing than BRT
- Looking at the data:
- Average trip speed: Light rail (28.1 mph) vs BRT (22.4 mph)
- Station spacing: Light rail (1.4 miles) vs BRT (0.8 miles)
- Both confirm the consultant's prediction.
The light rail system had higher construction costs and lower daily capacity than the bus rapid transit system did.
✗ Incorrect
- Points to construction costs and daily capacity differences.
- These metrics are not part of the consultant's hypothesis about speed vs accessibility trade-offs.
The light rail system achieved faster average speeds and maintained greater station spacing than the bus rapid transit system did.
✓ Correct
- Directly identifies the two key metrics from the consultant's hypothesis.
- Light rail's faster average speeds and greater station spacing perfectly support the consultant's argument about the speed-accessibility trade-off.
The bus rapid transit system and light rail system both provided substantial daily ridership capacity for urban areas.
✗ Incorrect
- Focuses on both systems having substantial capacity.
- This does not address the consultant's hypothesis about the speed vs accessibility trade-off.
The bus rapid transit system had more frequent stops and lower costs, but light rail offered significantly higher speeds.
✗ Incorrect
- Mentions some relevant elements but also includes costs, which were not part of the consultant's hypothesis.
- Mixes relevant data with irrelevant data.