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

Redeem

Conserving water

Expert replies
by Dean Jones » Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:59 am
Dear Friends,

I was having problems in answering the following question.

Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping
in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.
Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a waterconserving
landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?
A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.


Please help.

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by mankey » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:23 am
Is it E?

Thanks.
Join the discussion

by sk8legend408 » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:56 am
IMO B.

To counter the criticism you have to address the fact that the costs associated with converting to a waterconserving landscape.

B counters the criticism by pointing out that conventional landscapes have other costs, such as fertilizer and herbicide, that waterconserving landscapes do not have. Consequently there are additional cost savings with the waterconserving landscaping.
Join the discussion

by Dean Jones » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:03 pm
OA is option C. Can anybody explan why option B is incorrect?
Join the discussion

by nileshdalvi » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:54 am
Are you sure OA is C?. Because B seems to be the only rebuttal to the claim, although not a strong one.
Join the discussion

by kanwar86 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:30 am
Dean Jones wrote:Dear Friends,

I was having problems in answering the following question.

Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping
in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.
Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a waterconserving
landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?
A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.


Please help.

OA after some discussions.

Regards
Deano.
Brochure says: Converting your yard landscape into water saving landscape saves you money.
Critism: The after savings of a new water saving landscape cannot justify the initial cost of conversion (for most people with yards)
I think rebuttal of the criticism is D) where it states that initial cost of both the landscapes is same.
B) is emphasizing on the expenditure incurred on fertilizers in case of conventional landscape whose value has been stated as a fact (20$ on yearly water bills) in the criticism itself. Hence, cannot be correct.
C) states that most of the residents live in the buildings which do not have yards. If they do not have yards, why is the brochure initiating the issue of converting landscape into water conserving type in the first place. Kind of nonsensical :)
Regards

Kanwar

"In case my post helped, do care to thank. Happy learning :)"
Join the discussion

by mankey » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:06 am
Please explain this one, what are we trying to do in this question?

Regards.
Join the discussion