Cycle-Sharing Scheme and the Cost of Ridership
Read this passage and answer the questions that follow. A city introduced 1,200 shared bicycles at 85 docking stations in April. The initial fare was ₹10 for the first 30 minutes; after it fell to ₹5 in July, average daily rides rose from 2,400 to 2,832, an 18% increase. The transport department calls the cut a success. Yet the operator’s monthly rebalancing cost rose from ₹4.2 lakh to ₹5.9 lakh because more cycles ended up at metro stations and had to be trucked back to residential areas. Two councillors argue that the scheme should be judged by net cost per ride, not ridership. The operator has also begun charging a ₹20 penalty for cycles returned outside docks after 10 p.m., a rule that affects only 3% of rides. The department’s press note, however, reports only the ridership increase and omits rebalancing costs.
1. What inference about the transport department’s press note is best supported by the passage?
Read the worked answer
The press note is selective rather than necessarily false. It reports a real 18% rise in daily rides, but it omits the rise in rebalancing cost from ₹4.2 lakh to ₹5.9 lakh. That omission supports the inference that the department is presenting a one-sided success story. The passage does not prove the fare cut alone caused the ridership rise, because the late-return penalty was introduced in the same period, even though it affects only 3% of rides.
2. Evaluate the councillors’ claim that the scheme should be judged by net cost per ride rather than ridership.
Read the worked answer
The claim is strengthened by the rebalancing-cost increase: more rides have coincided with higher operating cost, so gross ridership alone does not show value for money. It is weakened only slightly by the ₹20 penalty, which affects 3% of rides and is unlikely to transform the cost picture. The main weakness is data availability: the passage gives no total operating cost, fare revenue, or penalty revenue, so net cost per ride cannot actually be computed from the passage. The councillors’ principle is sound, but the press note does not supply enough figures to apply it.
3. Describe the author’s tone toward the department’s success claim.
Read the worked answer
The tone is cautious and mildly skeptical. The author first gives the department’s claim and the ridership number, then immediately introduces “Yet” and the cost increase, followed by the councillors’ alternative metric and the press note’s omission. This structure does not call the department dishonest, but it frames the success claim as incomplete. The tone is not hostile or sarcastic; it is analytical, asking the reader to weigh ridership against cost.