Although airplanes and automobiles have now assumed greater prominence, the time has arrived for the resurgence of railroads. A revitalized and advanced railway system would confer numerous essential benefits on both the United States and the globe. (Paragraph 2)

In a sense these two obstacles are one, as American dependence on personal automobiles is partially due to the paucity of rapid public transportation. (Paragraph 3)

A high-speed passenger rail system would dramatically transform American life as travel between cities and states became quicker and more convenient, encouraging commerce, business, and tourism. Such a system would also make important strides in environmental preservation. According to a 2007 British study, “CO2 emissions from aircraft operations are…at least five times greater” than those from high-speed trains. (Paragraph 4)

We should thus move ahead with confidence that the rewards will outweigh the expenditure as citizens increasingly choose to travel by train. Both for society’s gain and the crucial well-being of the planet, our path forward should proceed upon rails. (Paragraph 5)

The author’s argument is that America should build a high-speed rail system because doing so would grant “numerous essential benefits on both the United States and the globe” (Paragraph 2). These benefits include “encouraging commerce, business, and tourism” as well as making “important strides in environmental preservation” (Paragraph 4). However, those benefits would occur only if the public is willing to use high-speed rail as a frequent mode of transportation.

The author suggests that this willingness exists. For instance, Paragraph 3 states that “American dependence on personal automobiles is partially due to the paucity (lack) of rapid public transportation,” implying that Americans would use such transportation if they had access to it. Likewise, Paragraph 5 makes this point more explicitly by asserting that “the rewards [of high-speed rail] will outweigh the expenditure as citizens increasingly choose to travel by train.”

Nevertheless, if American citizens continued to depend mostly on airplanes and cars even with high-speed trains available, then such trains would not actually provide the benefits that the author envisions. Consequently, for readers to find the author’s argument reasonable, it is most essential for them to accept the assertion that the public would readily adopt high-speed rail travel if it were available.

(Choice A) The airline and car industries have undue influence over American travel. Paragraph 2 states that “airplanes and automobiles have now assumed greater prominence” compared to trains in America, and Paragraph 3 cites “the current dominance of the automobile” as an obstacle to support for high-speed trains. Accordingly, the author would likely agree that the airline and car industries have undue influence over American travel. However, his or her argument depends more crucially on the idea that those industries’ influence is caused by “the paucity of rapid public transportation” (Paragraph 3), and thus that the public would readily adopt high-speed rail travel if it were available.

(Choice B) A high-speed railroad network would encourage economic activity. According to Paragraph 4, “A high-speed passenger rail system would dramatically transform American life…encouraging commerce, business, and tourism.” However, these economic benefits (as well as any environmental ones) could only be realized if citizens choose to embrace this mode of transportation. Therefore, the assertion that a high-speed railroad network would encourage economic activity is less essential to the author’s argument than the idea that the public would adopt high-speed rail travel once it is available.

(Choice C) The superiority of foreign railroads disadvantages America in international trade. Paragraph 3 states that “[t]he railroads of Europe and Japan…have vastly outpaced their American counterparts.” Although this statement indicates that foreign railroads are superior to those in America, the author’s argument is not based on the idea that building high-speed railroads would improve America’s international trade. Rather, the author claims that “travel between [American] cities and states would become quicker and more convenient” and that such railroads would “make important strides in environmental preservation” (Paragraph 4).

Locomotives were invented in England, with the first major railroad connecting Liverpool and Manchester in 1830. However, it was in America that railroads would be put to the greatest use in the nineteenth century. (Paragraph 1)

While that speed was achieved under tightly controlled conditions, it still speaks to the great disparity in railroad development between the United States and other countries since the mid-twentieth century. British trains travel at speeds much higher than those in America, where both the trains themselves and the infrastructure to support them have simply been allowed to fall behind. (Paragraph 3)

According to the passage, the first American trains overshadowed their British counterparts, but in modern times British trains are superior. For instance, Paragraph 1 conveys that although “[l]ocomotives were invented in England…it was in America that railroads would be put to the greatest use in the nineteenth century.” Paragraph 3 then explains that there has been a “great disparity in railroad development between the United States and other countries since the mid-twentieth century.” In particular, “British trains travel at speeds much higher than those in America, where both the trains themselves and the infrastructure to support them have simply been allowed to fall behind.”

Therefore, this relationship is most analogous to a situation in which an apprentice artist surpasses a master’s early works but does not live up to the master’s later works. Like the British railroads, the original artist (the master) was first surpassed, but his later works re-established his superior position.

By contrast, none of the following situations is most analogous to the relationship between American railroads and British railroads, because they do not include a re-established superiority:

• A financial investor earns large sums of money in the short term but loses a larger amount over time (Choice B). There is no suggestion in this analogy that such an investor later recoups her losses. Moreover, her situation is not described in relation to another entity that surpasses her.

• A rookie athlete sets a team record but in later seasons his record is broken by a newer player (Choice C). In the scenario described, the rookie’s record is later broken by a newer player, not by the previous record holder. Accordingly, while the newer player sets a superior record, he does not re-establish his superiority.

• An investigative journalist races to break a story but is beaten to the punch by a rival network (Choice D). There is no suggestion in this analogy that the journalist later beats the rival network to the punch on other stories.

The chief obstacles to garnering support for such a project are the current dominance of the automobile and the languishing technology of existing railroads. In a sense these two obstacles are one, as American dependence on personal automobiles is partially due to the paucity of rapid public transportation. The railroads of Europe and Japan, by comparison, have vastly outpaced their American counterparts. (Paragraph 3)

We should thus move ahead with confidence that the rewards will outweigh the expenditure as citizens increasingly choose to travel by train. (Paragraph 5)

Part of the author’s argument is that Americans would use more public transportation if it were feasible, but they are often forced to depend on vehicle ownership out of necessity. For example, Paragraph 3 connects the “current dominance of the automobile” in American life to the “languishing (neglected or weakened) technology of existing railroads,” and asserts that “American dependence on personal automobiles is partially due to the paucity (lack) of rapid public transportation.” Similarly, in Paragraph 5 the author asserts that if a high-speed rail network were built, “citizens [would] increasingly choose to travel by train,” which would reduce the need for them to own cars.

Thus, if there is an increasing trend of people using ride-sharing services for transportation, this trend would indicate that people are moving away from depending on their own vehicles for travel. Accordingly, such a trend would support the author’s assumption that the public could be willing to depend less on vehicle ownership.

(Choice A) It would refute the author’s suggestion that trains would help fill a transportational need. The author advocates high-speed rail as a way to address “the paucity of rapid public transportation” (Paragraph 3) in America. In addition, he or she implies that such a rail system would help take the place of air travel, noting that “‘CO₂ emissions from aircraft operations are…at least five times greater’ than those from high-speed trains” (Paragraph 4). Thus, a trend toward increased use of ride-sharing services suggests a need for additional transportation options which trains might also help to fill. Moreover, ride-sharing is unlikely to replace air travel as the author suggests high-speed rail might do. Therefore, an increasing trend of people using ride-sharing services for transportation would not refute the idea that trains would help fill a transportational need.

(Choice B) It would weaken the author’s comparison between the Transcontinental Railroad and high-speed rail. According to Paragraph 5, “developing a countrywide high-speed rail system would come with significant costs. However, that was also true of the original Transcontinental Railroad, as indeed it is with virtually any great project undertaken for the public good.” Therefore, the author compares the Transcontinental Railroad and modern high-speed rail as ambitious but costly projects designed for society’s benefit. The basis for this comparison is not affected by an increase in the number of people using ride-sharing services.

(Choice D) It would reinforce the author’s claim that automobiles have made public transportation less important. Paragraph 3 states that “American dependence on personal automobiles is partially due to the paucity of rapid public transportation.” Accordingly, the author argues that there is a lack of effective public transportation in America, to which the predominance of automobiles is a response. However, he or she does not claim that automobiles have made public transportation less important.

While the United States still has the largest railroad network in the world, it operates largely in the background of American life, and citizens no longer view trains with the sense of importance those machines once commanded. Nevertheless, the economic and industrial advantages those citizens enjoy today would not have been possible without America’s history of trains; as Tom Zoellner reminds us, “Under the skin of modernity lies a skeleton of railroad tracks.” (Paragraph 2)

According to Paragraph 2, American citizens “no longer view trains with the sense of importance those machines once commanded.” However, the author points out that “the economic and industrial advantages those citizens enjoy today would not have been possible without America’s history of trains; as Tom Zoellner reminds us, ‘Under the skin of modernity lies a skeleton of railroad tracks.'” Therefore, the passage presents Zoellner’s quote as an elaboration of the idea that America’s past use of railroads was essential to producing the country’s modern way of life.

Consequently, in the context of the passage, Zoellner’s claim indicates that American trains have been crucial in producing the country as we know it.

By contrast, in the context of the passage, Zoellner’s claim does not indicate that:

• American trains now represent an obsolete technology (Choice A). Paragraph 3 states that “in America…both the trains themselves and the infrastructure to support them have simply been allowed to fall behind,” which suggests that to some extent American trains represent an obsolete technology. However, the passage does not connect Zoellner’s quote to that idea, but instead to the claim that the advantages of modern society “would not have been possible without America’s history of trains” (Paragraph 2).

• American trains have been overshadowed by other forms of transportation (Choice B). According to Paragraph 2, “airplanes and automobiles have now assumed greater prominence” in America. However, Zoellner’s quote is used to indicate the past role of railroads in producing “the economic and industrial advantages [American] citizens enjoy today.” The passage does not connect Zoellner’s quote to the idea that trains have been overshadowed.

• American trains have been largely retired from use in current society (Choice C). According to the passage, “the United States still has the largest railroad network in the world,” even though “it operates largely in the background of American life” (Paragraph 2).

Although airplanes and automobiles have now assumed greater prominence, the time has arrived for the resurgence of railroads. A revitalized and advanced railway system would confer numerous essential benefits on both the United States and the globe. (Paragraph 2)

We should thus move ahead with confidence that the rewards will outweigh the expenditure as citizens increasingly choose to travel by train. Both for society’s gain and the crucial well-being of the planet, our path forward should proceed upon rails. (Paragraph 5)

One of the author’s main reasons for advocating the construction of high-speed rail is that this mode of transportation is environmentally conscious. For example, in Paragraph 2 the author states that “[a] revitalized and advanced railway system would confer (grant) numerous essential benefits on both the United States and the globe.” Likewise, he or she concludes by stating that “for society’s gain and the crucial well-being of the planet, our path forward should proceed upon rails” (Paragraph 5).

Accordingly, the author’s argument for the value of building a high-speed rail system in America depends heavily on the idea that such a system would benefit the environment. However, if the process of constructing high-speed rail could affect the environment in unpredictable ways, that would raise the possibility that such construction could cause negative environmental effects, not just the positive ones that the author describes. As that possibility could undercut the author’s justification for building a high-speed rail system, the author’s argument would be most challenged if that claim were true.

(Choice A) On average, the distance between travel destinations is shorter in Europe than it is in America. The author advocates high-speed rail in part because “‘CO₂ emissions from aircraft operations are…at least five times greater’ than those from high-speed trains” (Paragraph 4). This comparison implies that high-speed rail transportation can replace air travel, which typically covers long distances. Therefore, if the average distance between travel destinations is shorter in Europe than it is in America, that fact would reinforce the idea that America would benefit from a high-speed rail system.

(Choice B) The slower speeds of trains in America compared to those in Europe are due to safety issues with American trains. Paragraph 3 states that “in America…both the trains themselves and the infrastructure to support them have simply been allowed to fall behind,” whereas “[i]n much of Europe it is common for trains to travel at close to 200 miles per hour.” Accordingly, if American trains are unable to safely match the speed of European trains, this fact would be consistent with the author’s descriptions of American and European trains. Thus, safety concerns about American trains would support the author’s argument that America’s railways should be updated to match their faster and safer European counterparts.

(Choice C) The primary use of existing American trains is the transport of freight rather than passengers. The author argues that “[a] high-speed passenger rail system would dramatically transform American life, as travel between cities and states would become quicker and more convenient, encouraging commerce, business, and tourism” (Paragraph 4). If the primary use of existing American trains is the transport of freight rather than passengers, that fact would suggest a current lack of passenger trains. Therefore, this statement would likely support rather than challenge the author’s argument about the value of building a high-speed rail system in America.