Several threads in the past - Still not sure of OA - Pl Help

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:44 pm
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 water-conserving
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.

My answer is B. Can anyone please confirm.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 8:50 am
Thanked: 214 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:740

by Birottam Dutta » Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:59 am
Hey Gauraku,

It's a close call between B and E.

I would go for E.

Reason being that B is too restrictive. It only talks of expenditure on fertiliser and herbicides being more for a water conserving landscape but we are concerned with the overall costs involved. b does not provide information on overall costs.

E says that most of the water requirement goes on maintaining the conventional landscape so if this is true, then the water saving landscape will significantly reduce water requirement for these houses. I think this is the best criticism.

What's the OA?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:21 am
(B) should be correct. Basically the criticism is that there are hardly any savings (less than 20 bucks per year) from converting to a water-conserving landscape.

Choice (B) tells us that owners will be saving on more than just water bill e.g fertilizer and herbicide expenditures.



hope this helps.

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:23 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by umeshpatil » Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:27 am
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 water-conserving
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.


A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve
water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
->Brochure and Criticism are with those who have yards. Out of scope.
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
->Criticism says water conserving landscape only saves less than $20. but This option tells, expenditures on fertilizer and herbicides are also saved. So, This is possible answer.
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
-> Out of scope with the same reason of 'A'.
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional
landscaping.
-> This actually strengthens the criticism.
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other
purposes combined.
-> It has no effect over criticism.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:09 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:2 members

by ankita1709 » Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:39 am
gauraku wrote: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 water-conserving
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.
A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve
water by installing water-saving devices in their homes. - Out of scope as there is no mention about whether other water saving device is more cost effective
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and
herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape. - Provide evidence that converting to water saving landscape can save money in many other ways. Hence, it is cost efficient
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards. - Out of scope since the topic of discussion here is cost
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional
landscaping. - We are not comparing the cost of conventional vs water converting landscape. Point of discussion is whether it is cost efficient or not
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other
purposes combined.- Even if some home owners use more water in their yards the system will still save water. View this as relative statement. They will use relatively less water than they originally might have used

IMO : B
Ankita

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:44 pm

by gauraku » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:10 am
Thanks Everyone.. I was right ;)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:02 pm

by justharsha » Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:44 am
My choice is also B.

The criticism says that it might be difficult to justify conversion from the old to the new landscaping because the savings in only $20 on water bills. However B clearly rebuts it by stating that the saving comes from not only in water but in the form of money spent on fertilizers and herbicide as well which the criticism completely missed.
Choice E talks about money spent on other purposes but there is not mention of other purposes that water is used for in the test cases. Further even the water used after conservation might still be more than the water needed for all other purposes even if it is less than the water needed for the older non-conservative lawns

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:59 am

by skm » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:39 am
gauraku wrote: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 water-conserving
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.

My answer is B. Can anyone please confirm.
Hi,

argument : Cost > Savings and cites an evidence that savings is through only one single evenue
For Rebuttal ; we will have to find an option that shows Savings is greater ie there are other avenues from which savings can come


B correctly points out : More Savings = From Water + from fertlisers/herbicide