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

Redeem

If the county continues to collect residential trash

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

If the county continues to collect residential trash

by patanjali.purpose » Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:14 pm
If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS AN ASSUMPTION MADE IN DRAWING THE CONCLUSION ABOVE?

A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
D) The beauty of the county parkland is an important issue for most of the county's residents.
E) Landfills outside the county's borders could be used as dumping sites for the county's trash.

[spoiler]I am really confused with how C is NOT out of scope. The argument focuses on 'trash collection by country' - no where it is mentioned any other mode of trash collection and landfilling. Given the collection only by country, how can ILLEGAL DUMPING become a right choice in C. Is C correct because C is the best available option? [/spoiler] Could any one suggest how my reasoning is flawed.

[spoiler]Secondly, I think more than Illegal dumping by residents, a better option would be 'it is feasible for residents to reduce their trash'. If it is not feasible then charge WILL NOT protect parkland [/spoiler] Do you disagree?

Can you also explain what exactly B intends to say.
Last edited by patanjali.purpose on Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:06 am
Thanked: 18 times

by Neo Anderson » Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:39 pm
A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. Clearly irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about products that create trash
B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about purchsing power of the households
C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. most logical assumption, if this is not assumed, no point considering the charge because every household will start dumping the trash illegaly and the plan to save parklands will fail
D) The beauty of the county parkland is an important issue for most of the county's residents.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about beauty of the parklands

E) Landfills outside the county's borders could be used as dumping sites for the county's trash. .this can not be the assumption
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:04 pm
Neo Anderson wrote:A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. Clearly irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about products that create trash
B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about purchsing power of the households
C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. most logical assumption, if this is not assumed, no point considering the charge because every household will start dumping the trash illegaly and the plan to save parklands will fail
D) The beauty of the county parkland is an important issue for most of the county's residents.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about beauty of the parklands

E) Landfills outside the county's borders could be used as dumping sites for the county's trash. .this can not be the assumption
Hi,

Thanks. I also feels C is the best option available. However, the choice is confusing - how C is NOT out of scope. The argument focuses on 'trash collection by country' - no where it is mentioned any other mode of trash collection and landfilling. Given the collection only by country, how can ILLEGAL DUMPING become a right choice in C. Is C correct because C is the best available option? Could any one suggest how my reasoning is flawed.

Secondly, I think more than Illegal dumping by residents, a better option would be 'it is feasible for residents to reduce their trash'. If it is not feasible then charge WILL NOT protect parkland Do you disagree?
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: pune
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:3 members

by amit2k9 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:54 pm
well a defender answer choice here.Hence external element as mentioned in C is used.
Negating C, the argument crashes.

C it is.
For Understanding Sustainability,Green Businesses and Social Entrepreneurship visit -https://aamthoughts.blocked/
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:31 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by zoe » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:02 am
dear experts,
thanks for your patient to my question.

I am a little confused about this statement's conclusion
1/ this conclusion includes two events ?
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland
because I figure out there is a colon btw last 2 sentences, generally, colon means parallelism, so i think there are two events in conclusion , reduce trash and protect remaining parkland





2/ does charge cause reduce and cause protect parkland
or
charge causes reduce, then reduce causes protect parkland
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland
here is a word "therefore" implying a conclusion, charge therefore protect parkland,
reading it some times, i feel charge is not the direct cause which causes protect parkland, but i am not sure.

please help to clarify.

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:59 pm
Thanked: 20 times

by MBA Challengers » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:36 am
zoe wrote:dear experts,
thanks for your patient to my question.

I am a little confused about this statement's conclusion
1/ this conclusion includes two events ?
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland
because I figure out there is a colon btw last 2 sentences, generally, colon means parallelism, so i think there are two events in conclusion , reduce trash and protect remaining parkland





2/ does charge cause reduce and cause protect parkland
or
charge causes reduce, then reduce causes protect parkland
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland
here is a word "therefore" implying a conclusion, charge therefore protect parkland,
reading it some times, i feel charge is not the direct cause which causes protect parkland, but i am not sure.

please help to clarify.

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~
Hi Zoe,

Let us try to dissect the question stem here:

Premise 1: If country collects residential trash at current levels - landfills will overflow - parkland will have to be used to dump trash to create more space (Implication: Trash can be piled either at landfills or parklands. Once landfills have been completely filled, parkland will have to be utilized to pile the trash)
Premise 2: Charging each resident for each pound of trash will make residents reduce the amount of trash they put out for their household
Conclusion: This charge will reduce the rate of residential trash being collected - this implies that the landfills will continue to be sufficient enough to pile all trash - thus, the parkland will not need to be used to pile that trash

I hope this clarifies as it is in some ways a chain reaction. Now, moving on to the options:

A. The question does not mention any relationship of number of products bought to the amount of residential trash put out. INCORRECT.
B. The question stem does not mention any concern with the purchasing power of the residents and any linkage it might have to the charge being proposed. INCORRECT.
C. As discussed, the conclusion mainly hovers around the protection of park land. The idea is that if the residential trash levels are reduced, the accumulated residential trash can be limited to the landfills and the parkland will not have to be utilized for the trash. But, if the charge induces residents to illegally start dumping their trash in parklands (to avoid paying the per pound charge for the residential trash) then it defeats the purpose of not having to use the parkland for piling residential trash. CORRECT.
D. The question stem doesn't talk about whether the residents are in agreement or whether the popularity of the decision is important at all. INCORRECT.
E. This assumption has clearly not been made as the per pound charge is the only way the author seems to be proposing to prevent the residential trash from piling in parklands. If this premise was available to the author, then the charge might even not have been proposed as the main idea is to protect parkland by reducing trash. INCORRECT.

Hence, the correct option is C.
Log on to www.mbachallengers.com for
Easy strategic GMAT prep
For any queries mail us at [email protected]
Follow MBA Challengers on Facebook
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:32 pm
zoe wrote: I am a little confused about this statement's conclusion
1/ this conclusion includes two events ?
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland
because I figure out there is a colon btw last 2 sentences, generally, colon means parallelism, so i think there are two events in conclusion , reduce trash and protect remaining parkland
You're right - the conclusion here is multifaceted. The chain of events is CHARGE --> REDUCE TRASH --> PROTECT PARK. Because "reducing trash" is itself a future event, we don't know whether it's going to happen. You will sometimes see this referred to as an "intermediate conclusion," while protecting the park would be considered the "main conclusion."
2/ does charge cause reduce and cause protect parkland
or
charge causes reduce, then reduce causes protect parkland
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland
here is a word "therefore" implying a conclusion, charge therefore protect parkland,
reading it some times, i feel charge is not the direct cause which causes protect parkland, but i am not sure.
Not every chain of logic will be placed in perfect semantic order in a sentence. "Because he was distracted by the tv show, Bob burnt the food he was cooking. Thus, the television show caused him to go hungry." Clearly, the order is TV --> DISTRACTION --> BURNT FOOD --> HUNGER. We can piece that together, even if the sentence presents it in a different order.

You second interpretation was correct.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1