BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland

Expert replies
by BTGmoderatorDC » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:24 pm

Timer

00:00

Answers

A

B

C

D

E

Stats

Difficulty

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
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by deloitte247 » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:59 am
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
Join the discussion