water-conserving landscape!

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:53 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:5 members

water-conserving landscape!

by amysky_0205 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:29 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.

OA: B

plz explain!!! I crossed out the right answer....
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:40 pm
first, define the task. you are looking for a "rebuttal of the criticism", so you have to focus specifically on the basis of the criticism (i.e., not on everything that's given in the original argument).

the criticism is entirely a dollars-and-cents argument, so, in order to rebut it, you must choose an answer choice that also argues in terms of dollars and cents. so, you can get rid of (a), (c), and (e) right now, since they don't.

that leaves (b) and (d).
note that (d) is irrelevant to the criticism, since it deals with the comparative cost of installing a water-conserving landscape vs. a traditional landscape. that's not what the rebuttal is concerned with; the rebuttal is concerned with whether to switch from an already existing conventional landscape to a water-conserving one. for that kind of decision, the comparison in choice (d) -- which might be crucial if, say, someone didn't have a landscape yet and faced a choice between the two -- is a non-issue.
so, (b).

also, in addition to the above process of elimination (which doesn't even consider choice (b) on its own merits at all), note that choice (b) is actually what you are looking for: it gives another reason why the water-conserving landscape might lead to a lower monetary cost, even if the difference in the actual cost of water is minimal.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:45 pm
also, note that a "rebuttal" is not the same as "a statement that weakens a conclusion". it's more specific: a "rebuttal" actually rebuts the line of reasoning in an argument.

for instance, let's consider the criticism here, which is, essentially, "it's not worth it to switch to a water-conserving landscape, since the financial savings will not compensate for the cost of switching."

* you could weaken this conclusion with basically any statement indicating an incentive to switch, even if that incentive is unrelated to the financial-savings argument. for instance, if the person presenting the criticism has sensitive allergies, then "the water-conserving landscape will be easier on your allergies" would weaken the conclusion.
on the other hand, that statement does not rebut the argument, since it does nothing to dismiss the idea that the financial savings are less than adequate.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron