To reduce waste of raw materials, the government

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 3:35 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:2 members
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
B. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
C. For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
D. People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
E. Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.

Source:OG

OA:A

Experts how do I break down this argument and down with correct ans. Advice Please.

@GMATGuruNY, Matt@VeritasPrep, DavidG@VeritasPrep

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:38 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by rsarashi » Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:26 am
Hello Experts ,

Please share your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Rashi

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:53 am
Thanked: 4 times

by Sun Light » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:50 pm
Premise: A charge at the time of disposal will push people to use the product for a long time, so that they don't throw it and fully utilise it.

Conclusion : this will reduce wastage.

A. Correct, people might just throw anywhere rather than disposing it properly.

B. Out of scope, manufactures intent is not at the core, the user's intent is at the core of the argument.

C. Irrelevant.. fee is only charged at the time of disposal... Timing of salvage fee is not queationed.

Both D and E are strengthners..Both increases the life of the product therefore reducing waste, an idea that we have to weaken...

Surely, tough one..

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Sat Jan 07, 2017 10:52 am
NandishSS wrote:To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
B. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
C. For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
D. People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
E. Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.

Source:OG

OA:A

Experts how do I break down this argument and down with correct ans. Advice Please.

@GMATGuruNY, Matt@VeritasPrep, DavidG@VeritasPrep
The conclusion: It's better to charge a fee at the time of disposal/salvage than when an appliance is first sold.
Premise: If people have to pay a fee at the time of salvage, they'll hold on to the appliance longer.

We want to weaken this conclusion, so we want to show that charging a fee at the time of disposal/salvage won't work to reduce waste. In effect, we're looking for problems with charging a fee at the time of salvage.

A gives us a pretty compelling problem. If people dispose of the appliance improperly they'll 1) avoid the fee associated with proper disposal and thus 2) have no incentive to hold on to the appliance for a longer period of time.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course