Reading inference: interpreting a policy change
Read the notice and answer the questions. A city council notice reads: "From 1 March, the night bus service will run until 02:00 instead of 24:00 on Fridays and Saturdays only. The change follows a six-month trial in which ridership after midnight averaged 45 passengers per night on those two days, against 8 passengers per night on other days. The council will review the change after one year. A separate proposal to raise the night fare from 2.00 to 2.50 has been postponed." A resident complains: "They are cutting the service on weekdays and making us pay more."
1. Is the resident's complaint accurate? Support your answer with specific details from the notice.
Read the worked answer
Claim 1: "cutting the service on weekdays." Not supported. The notice says the extension applies to Fridays and Saturdays only, and that the service will run until 02:00 instead of 24:00. It says nothing about reducing weekday service. Weekday service simply stays as it was; only the extension is limited to two days. The resident confuses "not extended" with "cut."
Claim 2: "making us pay more." Not supported. The notice states the fare increase "has been postponed." Postponed means delayed, not enacted. As of the notice, the fare remains 2.00.
What the notice actually does.
- Extends Friday and Saturday night service to 02:00.
- Leaves other days unchanged.
- Delays the fare rise.
- Commits to a review after one year.
Conclusion. Both parts of the complaint misread the notice. The resident has taken a limited extension and a postponed increase and described them as a cut and a price rise. The evidence in the notice contradicts both claims.
2. Using the ridership figures, explain the council's reasoning and identify one weakness in the one-year review plan.
Read the worked answer
The council's reasoning. The trial compared ridership after midnight on two groups of days:
- Friday and Saturday: average 45 passengers per night.
- Other days: average 8 passengers per night.
The ratio is 45 : 8, roughly 5.6 to 1. Late-night demand is concentrated on weekend nights, so extending service only then captures most of the benefit at a fraction of the cost of running seven nights a week. This is a reasonable cost-effectiveness argument.
Weakness in the review plan.
- No baseline stated. The notice gives trial figures but does not say what ridership was before the trial, so the review cannot tell whether the extension caused the 45 or whether those passengers would have travelled anyway (for example, by taxi).
- Averages hide variation. 45 per night could mean a steady 45 or a few very busy nights and many quiet ones. Without the spread, a single average is a fragile basis for a year-long commitment.
- One year may be too short or too long. Demand may shift with seasons, term dates, or the postponed fare change, so a review at a fixed point may capture an unrepresentative period.
- The postponed fare is a confound. If the fare rise is introduced during the review year, ridership may fall for reasons unrelated to the timetable.
Improvement. The review should record a pre-change baseline, report nightly totals rather than only averages, and note any fare change during the period.