Critique of my conceptual design

While I was designing my E-R diagram, I made so many assumptions, firstly I

assumed a driver must have a supervisor who is also a driver but a supervisor
can supervise more than one diver.

Again I had already stated that a driver is assigned to a bus, and that a bus can
only be driven by one driver, I decided to make it obligatory on the driver and
optional on bus because a bus must definitely be driven by a driver but since
there are so many drivers, it is optional on the driver then. I went further to
assume that since many passengers board a bus and bus has to be filled by
many passengers, I decided to make it a many to many relationship and I broke
it down with the entity board, and while I was creating the table, I decided to
pick the primary key of passengers and also the primary key of bus, so they
formed my candidate key for the entity board.

When I got to the bus garage part, I decided to make it optional on bus and
mandatory on garage because, we have some times that some bus would not be
parked in the garage, but a garage must have buses packed in it.

I went further to represent my air conditioned and ordinary bus as disjunction

because in my problem statement, I had stated a bus can either be an air
conditioned or ordinary, so I thought it was better I represent it as a disjunction.

Furthermore, Since in the real life case scenario, there are times when the short
route run short of ordinary buses and AC buses are used, so I decided to make it
a 1: M relationship and I made it optional on short route because it does not
happen every time, I but I mad it mandatory that it plies long route. I
represented my ordinary to be mandatory for the short route because it only
plies short route and it is a 1: M relationship because many buses can ply the
short route.