Question

Which of the following, if true about early 1990, would most help to explain the decrease, in 1990, of the percent of people commuting to jobs in downtown Allentia who do so via public transportation?

• A. The termination of a governmental subsidy to the public transportation system that serves both the city and its suburbs caused a substantial increase in fares.
• B. Many new trains and buses were put into service in the public transportation system both within the city and between the city and its suburbs.
• C. Security was improved in the passenger waiting areas and on the public trains and buses used within the city as well as on those used between the city and its suburbs.
• D. Legislation was passed that increased the frequency of public transportation service within the city as well as between the city and its suburbs.
• E. The number of points served by the public transportation system both within the city and between the city and its suburbs was increased substantially by adding new routes.
• A. The price per gallon for gasoline declined by five percent.
• B. The cost of using public transportation, per mile traveled, increased.
• C. The number of people who commuted to work via public transportation from points in or near downtown Allentia increased.
• D. The frequency of public transportation service between the city and its suburbs decreased.
• J. The cost per mile of getting to and from work by car tripled.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks for a reason that would explain the decrease in the percentage of people using public transportation in 1990, as shown by the dip in both lines on the graph for that year. We need to find a cause that would make public transport less attractive for commuters from both downtown and the outer suburbs.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the options:


(A) Increased fares: A substantial increase in fares would make using public transportation more expensive. This would be a strong disincentive for people to use it, likely causing a decrease in ridership from all areas. This aligns perfectly with the data shown in the graph.

(B) New trains and buses: Adding new vehicles would improve the service, likely making it more attractive and \textit{increasing} the percentage of commuters. This contradicts the graph.

(C) Improved security: Better security would make passengers feel safer, which would encourage more people to use the service, leading to an \textit{increase} in the percentage. This contradicts the graph.

(D) Increased frequency: More frequent service would make public transport more convenient, which would likely lead to an \textit{increase} in its use. This contradicts the graph.

(E) Adding new routes: Expanding the service to more areas would make it accessible to more people, which would also be expected to \textit{increase} its use. This contradicts the graph.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The only option that provides a logical reason for a \textit{decrease} in public transport usage is the increase in fares. Therefore, option (A) is the correct answer.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question asks to explain the divergence seen in the graph between 1991 and 1992. During this period, the percentage of public transport users from the outer suburbs (dashed line) \textit{increased}, while the percentage for those from in or near downtown (solid line) \textit{decreased}. We need to find a reason that would affect these two groups differently, making public transport more appealing for suburbanites and less so for downtown dwellers.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the options in light of this divergence:


(A) Cheaper gasoline: This would make driving cheaper and more attractive for everyone, likely causing a decrease in public transport usage for \textit{both} groups. This does not explain the increase for suburban commuters.

(B) Increased public transport cost: This would make public transport less attractive for \textit{both} groups, likely causing a decrease in usage for both. This does not explain the increase for suburban commuters.

(C) Increased number of downtown commuters: An increase in the raw number of users from downtown does not explain why the \textit{percentage} of users decreased. It also fails to explain the divergence between the two groups.

(D) Decreased frequency for suburban routes: A reduction in service for suburban commuters would make public transport \textit{less} convenient for them, which would cause their usage to decrease, not increase. This is the opposite of what the graph shows.

(E) Tripled cost of commuting by car: A massive increase in the cost of driving would make public transportation a much more attractive financial alternative. This effect would be felt most strongly by those with the longest commutes and highest driving costs, which are the commuters from the outer suburbs. For downtown commuters with shorter travel distances, the absolute cost increase might be less, and they might have other alternatives like walking or biking, which could explain the slight decrease in their public transport usage. This option provides a strong rationale for the observed divergence.

Step 3: Final Answer:
A tripling of the cost of commuting by car would disproportionately incentivize suburban commuters to switch to public transport, explaining the divergence shown in the graph. Therefore, option (E) is the best explanation.