OG2016 = To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

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 non functioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

by richachampion » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:17 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

OA: A
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

by richachampion » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:20 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

EXPERTS PLEASE CHECK IF MY ANALYSIS IS CORRECT?

Causality >>
Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively
Cause: Imposing the fee at the time of salvage
Effect: Would reduce waste more effectively

IN A
if increasing would have been Imposing then the option would have been better.

I was down to D and A, but my understanding to discard D is -
It neither strengthen or undermines the causality that we have established above. It may be treated as weak strengthener because in a manner it justifies that it is better not to charge salvage fee at the time of purchase, but it is still unable to justify or weaken whether this will eventually help in dispoing or Not?

Is my analysis correct for discarding Option D.
Last edited by richachampion on Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:27 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:620

by vinni.k » Wed Oct 05, 2016 3:46 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

Will really appreciate if any expert can give their analysis on this question

Thanks
Vinni

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:12 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

richachampion 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 non functioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
To salvage an appliance is to break it down into parts so that the parts can be REUSED and the appliance is NOT turned into waste.

Plan: Impose a fee at the time of salvage rather than at the time of sale.
Conclusion: Waste will be reduced more effectively.

To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer must show that imposing a fee at the time of salvage will NOT reduce waste more effectively.

A: Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
Here, imposing a fee when an appliance is discarded will induce people to dispose of the appliance improperly, with the result that the appliance will NOT be salvaged.
Since the appliance's parts will NOT be reused, the result will be an INCREASE in waste, WEAKENING the conclusion that imposing a fee at the time of salvage will reduce waste more effectively.

The correct answer is A.

D: People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
This information suggests that one way to avoid paying a fee at the time of salvage is to SELL an appliance rather than discard it, STRENGTHENING the conclusion that imposing a fee at the time of salvage will lead to a reduction in waste.
Eliminate D.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

by richachampion » Wed Oct 05, 2016 9:22 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:Mr. Hunt,
Did you find my approach correct?
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:29 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

richachampion wrote:Is my analysis correct for discarding Option D.
Looks good.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

by richachampion » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:37 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
richachampion wrote:Is my analysis correct for discarding Option D.
Looks good.
Thanks! :D
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:22 am

Re:

by gui_guimaraes » Fri May 22, 2020 2:18 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:12 am
richachampion 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 non functioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
To salvage an appliance is to break it down into parts so that the parts can be REUSED and the appliance is NOT turned into waste.

Plan: Impose a fee at the time of salvage rather than at the time of sale.
Conclusion: Waste will be reduced more effectively.

To weaken the conclusion, the correct answer must show that imposing a fee at the time of salvage will NOT reduce waste more effectively.

A: Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
Here, imposing a fee when an appliance is discarded will induce people to dispose of the appliance improperly, with the result that the appliance will NOT be salvaged.
Since the appliance's parts will NOT be reused, the result will be an INCREASE in waste, WEAKENING the conclusion that imposing a fee at the time of salvage will reduce waste more effectively.

The correct answer is A.

D: People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
This information suggests that one way to avoid paying a fee at the time of salvage is to SELL an appliance rather than discard it, STRENGTHENING the conclusion that imposing a fee at the time of salvage will lead to a reduction in waste.
Eliminate D.
@GMATGuruNY why E is wrong? Tks! :)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:49 am

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

A is correct. Imposing a fee when an appliance is discarded will induce people to dispose of the appliance improperly, with the result that the appliance will NOT be salvaged, INCREASING in waste, and WEAKENING the conclusion.