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 nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
OA A
Source: Official Guide
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorDC
- Moderator
- Posts: 7187
- Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
- Followed by:23 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
-
deloitte247
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
- Followed by:5 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
We are here to find which of the options indeed weakens the argument as put forward by the writer.
Option A:- correct
For as long as the salvage value cost of the household appliances are added to the initial value costs, it's forever going to dissuade owners of such properties to discard them according to the government's prescriptions because of the additional payment. This correctly negates the mind of the writer with regards to the argument.
Option B:- Incorrect
Since they are getting an additional payment in form of savage value then they are sure to produce long-term usable goods so that resellers value would would reduce drastically.
Option C:- Incorrect
We can as well assume the law is already in place which then means those who got appliances recently must have paid for salvage value fee. This is still in correspondence with the original argument.
Option D:- Incorrect
Provided the law has been implemented then they won't bother paying because they must have paid when making the purchase initially. Still not running parallel to the
Option E:- Incorrect
Of course, but the resale value would have diminished to an extent you'd be left with no other option than to discard them which is what the law seeks to prohibit i.e indiscriminate discarding of used appliances
Option A:- correct
For as long as the salvage value cost of the household appliances are added to the initial value costs, it's forever going to dissuade owners of such properties to discard them according to the government's prescriptions because of the additional payment. This correctly negates the mind of the writer with regards to the argument.
Option B:- Incorrect
Since they are getting an additional payment in form of savage value then they are sure to produce long-term usable goods so that resellers value would would reduce drastically.
Option C:- Incorrect
We can as well assume the law is already in place which then means those who got appliances recently must have paid for salvage value fee. This is still in correspondence with the original argument.
Option D:- Incorrect
Provided the law has been implemented then they won't bother paying because they must have paid when making the purchase initially. Still not running parallel to the
Option E:- Incorrect
Of course, but the resale value would have diminished to an extent you'd be left with no other option than to discard them which is what the law seeks to prohibit i.e indiscriminate discarding of used appliances
