BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Two years ago, the state of Lonsia declared the goal

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:52 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

Two years ago, the state of Lonsia declared the goal

by sachin_yadav » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:19 am
Two years ago, the state of Lonsia declared the goal of reducing the number of un-recycled soda cans to half. The un-recycled soda cans were about 10 per person then. Currently the soda cans that are un-recycled are only 5 per person. Clearly, the state has met its goal.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) People are increasingly becoming aware of the harmful effects of drinking soda.
B) There is little damage to the overall soft drink industry due to the negative publicity generated by the
recycling campaign
C) Lonsia is not the only state that is concerned about recycling
D) The total population of the state of Lonsia has not increased substantially in the past two years.
E) The per-capita consumption of soda in the state of Lonsia has not increased during the past two years.

OA is D

Why cannot it be E
Never surrender
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:03 pm
sachin_yadav wrote:Two years ago, the state of Lonsia declared the goal of reducing the number of un-recycled soda cans to half. The un-recycled soda cans were about 10 per person then. Currently the soda cans that are un-recycled are only 5 per person. Clearly, the state has met its goal.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) People are increasingly becoming aware of the harmful effects of drinking soda.
B) There is little damage to the overall soft drink industry due to the negative publicity generated by the
recycling campaign
C) Lonsia is not the only state that is concerned about recycling
D) The total population of the state of Lonsia has not increased substantially in the past two years.
E) The per-capita consumption of soda in the state of Lonsia has not increased during the past two years.

OA is D

Why cannot it be E
The argument depends on a connection made between unrecycled cans per person and total unrecycled cans. The state's goal is to reduce the TOTAL by half and the argument asserts that since the cans PER PERSON have been reduced by half the goal has been achieved.

E is a trap answer. E says that the argument depends on SODA PER PERSON not having increased. If soda per person increased, UNRECYCLED CANS PER PERSON and TOTAL UNRECYCLED CANS could still have decreased. In fact, the argument does not assume that unrecycled cans per person has decreased. Rather, it states as fact that unrecycled cans per person has decreased. So E is irrelevant.

D, however, is relevant. The argument is based on a connection between reduced UNRECYCLED CANS PER PERSON and reduced TOTAL cans. For the argument to work you have to assume that the population has not increased substantially, because if the population has increased then even if unrecycled cans per person has decreased by half, total cans has not decreased by half.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:52 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by sachin_yadav » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:05 am
Marty,

Thanks for your reply.

Please let me know if I am understanding correctly choice (E).
For example, 1 person consumes 30 soda cans. Now these soda cans go for recycling. Out of 30 cans, 10 are recycled, and 20 are not recycled. Now our goal is to reduce the number of soda cans to half (10) that are not recycled (unrecycled).

Now if by chance this person's consumption got doubled (60). Out of 60 cans, 10 are recycled and 50 are not. Now, number of soda cans that are not recycled still be reduced to half (25).

So, there is no link between consumption and number of unrecycled soda cans.

Please correct if I am wrong.

Regards
Sachin

[/u]
Never surrender
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:42 am
sachin_yadav wrote:Marty,

Thanks for your reply.

Please let me know if I am understanding correctly choice (E).
For example, 1 person consumes 30 soda cans. Now these soda cans go for recycling. Out of 30 cans, 10 are recycled, and 20 are not recycled. Now our goal is to reduce the number of soda cans to half (10) that are not recycled (unrecycled).

Now if by chance this person's consumption got doubled (60). Out of 60 cans, 10 are recycled and 50 are not. Now, number of soda cans that are not recycled still be reduced to half (25).

So, there is no link between consumption and number of unrecycled soda cans.

Please correct if I am wrong.

Regards
Sachin
Sachin, what you said is close but does not quite capture the logic of the situation. Check this out.

2 People - 40 Sodas - 40 Cans - 20 Cans Recycled - 20 Cans Unrecycled

Here is the goal, to reduce TOTAL UNRECYCLED by half.

2 People - 40 Sodas - 40 Cans - 30 Cans Recycled - 10 Cans Unrecycled

In this scenario the number of unrecycled cans went from 20 to 10, and was therefore reduced to half of what it had been.

That scenario also fits the prompt, because the prompt says that the unrecycled soda cans were about 10 per person, and currently the soda cans that are unrecycled are only 5 per person.

We have a constraint. To fit the prompt, unrecycled cans must be 5 per person. So even if consumption increased, unrecycled cans did not.

We could have this scenario, consumption doubled.

2 People - 80 Sodas - 80 Cans - 70 Cans Recycled - 10 Cans Unrecycled

To fit the prompt, we still need 5 unrecycled cans per person. So the unrecyled cans per person still went from 10 to 5, and was reduced to half of what it had been per person.

The prompt just says that the goal is to reduce the unrecycled cans "to half" rather than "to reduce the total number of unrecycled cans to half of what it had been." The way the prompt says it is a little unclear, but given that the prompt continues by saying that unrecycled cans per person were reduced to half of what they had been, you can figure out that the point is not to reduce the proportion of cans unrecycled, but to reduce the total number of cans not recycled.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:52 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by sachin_yadav » Wed Mar 23, 2016 9:29 pm
Thanks :)
Never surrender
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1