GMAT Essay Topic 431 - The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter. "While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies' property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens." Discuss how well reasoned . . . Etc.
Author: u_stet | Date: October 3, 2016 | Score:5
The argument is seriously flawed because it makes dubious assumptions and offers unreliable evidence. It claims that trucking companies only pay part of maintenance costs for highway, and then simplistically goes on to conclude that the government should reduce the railroad companies' property ta...
This essay has been rated a score of 5. Essays in this score category are paid content. Please Register to gain access to this essay.
Under the same topic
In the recent editorial, the author concluded that the government should lower the railway companies' property taxes. The argument makes several unsupported assumptions, most notable that, trucking companies pay only maintenance cost but no tax, sending goods through railway is more appropriate than shipping and rail lines are less fuel consuming, environmental friendly, and less traffic. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has a several flaws.
Firstly, the argument assumes trucking companies only pay maintenance cost but no pay property taxes. This argument is stretch and unreliable. In above argument there is no clear about the payment made by the trucking company. In every country trucking company pay more taxes than any other transportation company. The argument would have been much better if the author mentioned several examples which show truck company doesn't any taxes.
Additionally, the argument is also assumes that sending goods through railway transportation is more appropriate that the shipping. This argument also has a several flaws on the basis of importation of needs of transportation. Every means of transportation has their specific important. We can't use railway through water and shipping through railway. In addition, the argument doesn't provide evidence of the use of transportation.
Finally, the argument claims that railway way is more appropriate than other transportation on the basis of environmental friendly and traffic. If we evaluate argument on the basis of evaluation shipping is more appropriate for less environmental pollution and less traffic because there is no any route in waterway
In conclusion, all the transportation company has their own importation. We cannot use rail on roadway, truck on railway and ship on any other way. So, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthen if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to access the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have knowledge of all contributing factors.