Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardResolving Paradoxes and Discrepancies

A metropolitan transit authority recently installed automated, contactless payment turnstiles across its subway network, allowing commuters to tap credit cards directly rather than purchasing paper farecards. Following the installation, queue times at station entrances decreased significantly, and recorded incidents of gate-jumping fare evasion dropped by 40 percent. However, during the six months after the rollout, total fare revenue collected by the transit authority decreased by 12 percent compared to the same period in the previous year, despite total ridership remaining constant and base ticket prices remaining unchanged. Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

  1. The new turnstile software immediately released the gate latch upon detecting any contactless card, but deferred card balance authorization until off-peak hours, allowing commuters with inactive or over-limit cards to pass through without successfully settling their fares.Answer
  2. B
    Suburban commuter rail systems operated by a neighboring transit jurisdiction experienced a decline in total fare revenue over the exact same six-month timeframe.
  3. C
    The transit authority hired additional fare inspectors to conduct random ticket audits inside train cars during peak travel hours following the system upgrade.
  4. D
    Commuters using contactless credit cards spent less overall time purchasing food and beverages from private vendors inside subway stations than commuters who used legacy paper tickets.
  5. E
    Annual maintenance expenditures for the new electronic turnstile gates were substantially lower than the upkeep costs of the older mechanical turnstiles.

Answer

The resolution is that the new turnstiles granted access upon card detection but deferred account authorization to off-peak hours, allowing users with invalid or over-limit cards to enter without successfully paying their fares.
The correct answer resolves the paradox by bridging the gap between gate compliance and payment settlement. Because turnstiles unlocked upon detecting a card tap but deferred bank authorization until later, riders with invalid or over-limit cards walked through normally (reducing visible gate-jumping fare evasion and entrance queues) but ultimately failed to generate successfully settled fare revenue.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the two seemingly contradictory facts presented in the stimulus.
Fact 1: Turnstile queues and gate-jumping fare evasion decreased by 40%, while ridership and ticket prices remained constant. Fact 2: Total collected fare revenue dropped by 12%.
Resolving a paradox requires finding a piece of information that allows both facts to be true at the same time.
2
Analyze what mechanism could cause recorded gate compliance to rise while actual money collected falls.
The mechanism must involve a scenario where riders interact with the turnstiles legitimately (lowering recorded gate-jumping), yet valid payment is not actually captured.
If riders appear compliant at entry but fail to yield financial settlement, revenue will drop despite normal ridership and seemingly high gate compliance.
3
Evaluate the correct resolution choice against the two facts.
Deferred payment processing explains both: commuters tapped cards (eliminating gate-jumping and queues), but their payments were rejected later during off-peak processing, leading to uncollected revenue.
It directly reconciles the tension without denying either premise.

Key Concept

Resolving Paradoxes and Discrepancies
Rate this question

Topics

Resolving Paradoxes and Discrepancies

More questions from this topic