If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing, and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space.
The condition: The county continues to collect residential trash at the current rate
The consequence: Landfills will soon be overflowing, and parkland will need to be used to create space for the extra trash.

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create;
This statement is a prediction; it says X will lead to Y.

X: charging each household a fee per pound of trash it gives for collection

Y: Residents will be encouraged to reduce the amount of trash they create

(As I read this statement, I can already observe a difference between “the trash it gives for collection” and “the trash they create.” I can see that people may find a way to save the amount they pay by reducing the amount of trash they give to collection but keep producing the same amount of trash. Maybe, they’ll dispose of the remaining trash on their own)

this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.
The author concludes that this charge will protect the remaining county parkland.

The Gist:

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will reduce the amount of trash the residents generate and thus will protect the remaining county parkland.

The Gaps

1. As I shared in the passage analysis, the residents may find a way to dispose of their trash in some way other than giving it for collection and may continue to generate the same amount of trash. In such a case, our plan will not reduce the amount of trash the residents generate.
2. It could also be the case that the households are completely comfortable with paying the fee. As a result, they don’t reduce the amount of trash that they generate.

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy

Incorrect. -Let me first discuss a variation of this option:

A’: Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection

Is A’ an assumption?

I don’t think so. Let me explain.

The argument says that X (charging each household for the trash it generates) will lead to Y (reduction in the amount of residential trash). Thus, X will help.

A’ says that Y will happen.

Think about it. I say, “X will lead to Y. Thus, X will help.”

Am I assuming that Y will happen? (“Y will happen” means there are no conditions attached to the occurrence of Y. This means that Y will happen, irrespective of X.)

No.

Am I assuming that X will make Y happen?

I don’t think so. I’m directly stating, “X will lead to Y.” How can a rephrasing of my statement be an assumption? It’s not.

From the above discussion, we understand that “Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection” is not an assumption of the above argument.

Now, let’s look at the original option A:

Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.

The option says that the residents will reduce the amount of trash in a specific way. Which way? By reducing the number of products they buy.

Does it matter to us how they reduce the amount of trash?

Not at all.

Whether they reduce the number of products or shift to using only those products that produce less trash is none of our concern.

Thus, option A is incorrect.

(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.

Incorrect. - This option weakens the argument; the option indicates that the collection fee may fail to reduce the amount of trash the residents put out for collection.

Since this option weakens the argument, it cannot be an assumption.

(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.

Correct. - This option strengthens the argument by saying that the collection fee will not lead to dumping of trash in the parklands.

On negation, the option says:

The collection fee will induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.

In this case, the argument falls flat since if the collection fee induces residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally, charging the collection fee will not save the parklands.

Since the argument breaks down on negating the option, option C is an assumption.

(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.

Incorrect. -This option has no impact on the argument. Whether the beauty of the parkland is an important issue or not for the residents doesn’t help us evaluate whether charging the collection fee will reduce the amount of trash residents generate or not.

(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.

Incorrect. -This option has NO IMPACT on the argument. Our concern is whether charging households a fee for the amount of trash they generate will reduce the amount of trash they generate and thus will help the parklands.

The fact that we can use landfills outside the county’s borders doesn’t impact the argument. (If the argument had been that we NEED TO reduce the amount of trash to save the parklands in the county, then this option would have weakened. Why? Because this option indicates that we don’t need to reduce the amount of trash to save the county’s parklands. We can simply use outside landfills. However, the current argument is not about what NEEDS to be done but about whether doing X will lead to Y.)

Conclusion: Charging collection fee willl make the house hold to reduce the trash and this will protect the county parkland from becoming landfils.
Premise: The increasing amount of trash will make the current landfill overflow and will need to change the county park land as Land fills.

Cause - effect

Assumption:
1) Charging is the only option will make the residents to reduce the trash
2) Even when Residents are charged with collection fee the land fills should not overflow.

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. - Buying capacity has nothing to say for the trash that is produced
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out. - Purchasing power is irrelevant for the conclusion
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. - Apt answer for the 2nd assumption - Says - X(Collection fee) occurs then y (Landfills will not over flow) will occur . Negating again breaks conclusion - collection fee will induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. - X(Collection fee) occurs then y (Landfills will not over flow) will not occur
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents. - Beauty is irrelevant for the conclusion
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash - irrelevant

I picked D . often forget to negate the answer choice.

Picked D too, but after analysis understood WHY C is right. Just forgot that an assumption have according to CR Bible two roles: acting as a supporter and as a defender. So if there are no gaps in the argument -> Use assumption as a defender, that means, sliminate answer choices that could weaken a conclusion... So C can weaken a conclusion.....

Actually, if I had negated answer choices C and D -> Negating C would hurt the conclusion.

Argument analysis :

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. - A prediction based on current situation
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; - proposed line of action
this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland. - Conclusion

Assumptions:
Increase in fee will be successful to achieve the desired objective of protecting the parkland by reducing the amount of trash, hence assumes that -
- increase in fees will be enough to convince/force the residents to decrease the amount of trash or
- proper execution of the policy will be there or
- residents will not find any other way of dumping the trash

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. It cannot be an assumption. Even though the option talks about reduction in amount of trash, it does not follow the line of argument that is …impact of fees or how increase in fees has led to this initiative.
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out. Against the argument
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. Correct. Negates
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents. Priority is good but where is impact of line of action.
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash. Can be but it is not the point of argument.

Option C

Conclusion : Monetary charges on residents will help reducing the trash and hence will save parkland county from excessive trash.

Assumption : Any statement that will help us to conclude that this plan will be a success.

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. Not that relevant. We can have better answer.
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out. Out of scope
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. Good. if this happens then residents need not to pay more and they can dump the trash in Parkland county dump yards Illegally.
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents. Out of scope
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash. Out of scope


(C)

The correct answer - option C.

Argument Analysis:

1. if (residential or household level trash collection continues at current levels), then (landfills will soon be overflowing, parkland will need to be used as landfill)
2. Conclusion:

Levying a charge on trash put out for collection by households (per pound of trash) -> residents reducing the amount of trash they create -> protection of remaining country parkland

Question:
Find an assumption

Prethinking:
In what scenario will the levying of a charge on trash as discussed above not lead to residents reducing trash creation, and consequently, not lead to protection of the remaining parkland?

1. What if the current consumption of products (which generates trash) is already at the lowest possible level for a household to sustain itself, and it is not practically possible for households to reduce trash further? In such a case, even if a charge is levied, the households will not be able to reduce trash, and so, we cannot say that the remaining parkland will be protected.

Assumption - It is actually possible for households to reduce the trash they create

2. What if, thanks to the collection fee, residents now start directly dumping trash in the parklands, instead of keeping it outside their homes for collection? In such a case, yet again, charging a fee will not have the intended outcome. Households will continue to create the same of higher amounts of trash, and start dumping it illegally in the parklans

Assumption - The fee will not induce residents to dump the trash in the parklands themselves illegally, instead of leaving it outside their homes for collection.

Option Choice Analysis

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.

In identifying the assumption behind the argument that the fee will lead to lesser trash put out for collection leading to protection of parkland, a valid assumption that helps explain how the fee will lead to lesser trash is what is needed.

Fee -> Lesser trash creation. An assumption behind this is what we need

How is the fee connected to reduction of number of products bought? We do not know if it is the fee which led to this reduction.

Option A: Reduction in number of products bought -> reduction in amount of trash created

We have no idea if Fee -> Reduction in number of products bought

If we cannot connect the fee to the reduction in #products bought by residents, then it cannot be an assumption for this argument.

(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.

Given in the option that households do not reduce the amount of trash. In such a case, impact of collection fee on purchasing power is irrelevant. Our concern is amount of trash, which is not being reduced


(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.

This is correct. In line with our prethought assumption 2.

(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.

Beauty is irrelevant to the argument.

(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.

Irrelevant. Negate and check - even if landfills outside cannot be used, the collection fee may still be able to reduce trash creation, and protect domestic parklands. The conclusion will not break when the option is negated.

option C is correct.

EducationAisle sir,

Is my reasoning below correct? Please share your two cents.

Conclusion:- This charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.
Basis:- Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create.

Option A:- This is the incorrect answer choice because although the residents are reducing the amount of trash that they are putting out for collection but they are not doing so because of the fee that is being charged. They are doing so by reducing the number of products they buy. So although this is tempting but this is incorrect because we don't know what is the impact of levying the fee on these households.

Option B:- We are not concerned with the purchasing power of residents. Irrlevant to our argument.

Option C:- This is the correct answer choice because if the charge would not lead to illegal dumping by residents then charge will therefore protect the remaining county parklands. When we negatre this option statement we get "Collection fee will induce their residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally". then this weakens the conclusion. The remaining parklands would not be protected. Hence, this is the correct answer choice.

Option D:- Irrelevant to our argument. No mention and no relation of beauty.

Option E:- Our conclusion still stands. If landfills outside the county's borders could be used for dumping, we know that landfills will soon be overflowing. Hence, this is the incorrect answer choice.

The conclusion is that charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create.

Now, how exactly will the residents reduce the amount of trash they create (by reducing the number of products they buy, by indulging in more recycling, or by any other means) is out of scope. Hence, A is not really relevant.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.