In order to ease the traffic congestion, the transport planners decided to have a sophisticated system of elevated monorail travel in the city. However, it was pointed out by somebody that a metro rail system would be a more effective solution to the traffic problem. The plan was thus stalled. Moreover, since a budget had not been drawn up for the project, it was deemed fit to stall the work of the monorail for some time. In the meanwhile, the traffic planners of the city decided to build an efficient system of subways and flyovers in the city with the aim of easing the same problem. At the instant when the planners were preparing to award the contracts to the concerned parties, the transport planners came up with the contention that the subways interfered with the site of a pillar of the monorail system. The traffic planners had to give up the idea and think of other possible solutions.
Which of the following can we infer from the above passage?
Option A cannot be inferred as it is nowhere mentioned. Option B is not necessarily true. The two groups may not agree to each others plans even if they are friendly with each other. Thus, just from the fact that they opposed each others plans we cannot infer that there is contention between the two groups. From the paragraph, we can infer that neither of the two groups can proceed i.e. neither the traffic planners nor the transport planners can move ahead with any plan. Thus, both the parties are dead-locked. Hence, we can infer option C.
Create a FREE account and get: