• NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
Hundreds of Questions Highly Detailed Reporting Expert Explanations
• 7 CATs FREE!
If you earn 100 Forum Points

Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS Earn 10 Points Per Post Earn 10 Points Per Thanks Earn 10 Points Per Upvote ## Several threads in the past - Still not sure of OA - Pl Help ##### This topic has 7 member replies ## Several threads in the past - Still not sure of OA - Pl Help Brochure: Help conserve our cityâ€™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 homeownerâ€™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. Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Joined 08 Jul 2009 Posted: 342 messages Followed by: 19 members Upvotes: 214 Test Date: 24/04/2009 GMAT Score: 740 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? _________________ Folks please check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7p56NzAVKc Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Joined 25 Mar 2012 Posted: 341 messages Followed by: 4 members Upvotes: 17 Test Date: 07/09/2013 Target GMAT Score: 700+ GMAT Score: 720 (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. Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Joined 23 May 2012 Posted: 79 messages Upvotes: 10 Target GMAT Score: 800 Brochure: Help conserve our cityâ€™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 homeownerâ€™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
Joined
15 Feb 2012
Posted:
109 messages
Followed by:
2 members
8
gauraku wrote:
Brochure: Help conserve our cityâ€™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 homeownerâ€™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
Joined
09 Mar 2012
Posted:
21 messages
Thanks Everyone.. I was right

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
20 Apr 2012
Posted:
44 messages
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 Joined 07 Dec 2011 Posted: 8 messages gauraku wrote: Brochure: Help conserve our cityâ€™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 homeownerâ€™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 • FREE GMAT Exam Know how you'd score today for$0

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

### Top First Responders*

1 Ian Stewart 41 first replies
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow 36 first replies
3 Scott@TargetTestPrep 33 first replies
4 Jay@ManhattanReview 30 first replies
5 GMATGuruNY 23 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

### Most Active Experts

1 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

159 posts
2 Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

91 posts
3 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

56 posts
4 Ian Stewart

GMATiX Teacher

50 posts
5 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

35 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts