It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 17:50

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Posts: 85

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 98

Concentration: Leadership, Technology
Reviews Badge
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2015, 11:35
'C' is the right choice because 'enthusiasm' can justify the success of program in a state where money is NOT the incentive for people.
_________________

Cheers!
-----------------------------
Please give kudos if you think it is worth it !

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 98

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2013
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2015, 12:18
souvik101990 wrote:
New Project - Reviving the hardest questions on GMAT Club. Kudos for every reply with an explanation in the first 24 hours!


Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminium cans are recycled. This is, the advocates say, because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in analyzing the significance of the study referenced above?

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program?
B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers?
C) When the five-cent deposit programs were implemented, were the citizens of the states that began programs as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states?
D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?
E) Where the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding?



Advocate argument : five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection

Reason : they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminium cans are recycled. This is, the advocates say, because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities.

Author Counter argument :
However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

Counter argument of author based on the assumption that both the states have similar conditions.

Question is evaluation based. We need to evaluate the argument by which yes/no will counter/support either author or advocate statement.


Answer analysis :

A. out of scope revenue is not part of argument
B. Preference is not the parameter , we need to evaluate whether the law is necessary or not
C. Correct
D. Number of recycle again not the parameter of evaluation. Yes/ No to the argument will not effect either author or Advocate argument
E. Funding again is Out of scope

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 2

GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
Reviews Badge
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2015, 23:11
Lets try to break it down a lil bit..

suppose there are 100 bottles worth of beverage.. success rate of incentive driven suppose 100% and 50% for non incentive.
now, all 100 bottles worth of beverages goes back for recycling. and 50 in case for non incentive.
Now, comprehensive programme case - suppose there are 5 categories of recycling. If its a comparable distribution of 100 bottles worth of beverage , then it becomes 20 each for the 5 categories. Now, only incentive is for bottles ones.. 100% success gives 20 bottles returned, but for the non incentive one, as per 50 percent success assumed it becomes 50 bottles and hence more successful overall.

So, comprehensive distribution defeats incentive when its comparable distribution..

So it should be D .
Attachments

IMG_20150416_112005.jpg
IMG_20150416_112005.jpg [ 2.15 MiB | Viewed 5173 times ]

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 224

Kudos [?]: 254 [0], given: 56

Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Apr 2015, 07:47
D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?

is wrong because it is about purchasing beverages , its not talking about the main point i.e. recycle
_________________

If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, I kinda need some =)

Kudos [?]: 254 [0], given: 56

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Status: One Last Shot !!!
Joined: 04 May 2014
Posts: 254

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 142

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2015, 13:02
victoraditya wrote:
Lets try to break it down a lil bit..

suppose there are 100 bottles worth of beverage.. success rate of incentive driven suppose 100% and 50% for non incentive.
now, all 100 bottles worth of beverages goes back for recycling. and 50 in case for non incentive.
Now, comprehensive programme case - suppose there are 5 categories of recycling. If its a comparable distribution of 100 bottles worth of beverage , then it becomes 20 each for the 5 categories. Now, only incentive is for bottles ones.. 100% success gives 20 bottles returned, but for the non incentive one, as per 50 percent success assumed it becomes 50 bottles and hence more successful overall.

So, comprehensive distribution defeats incentive when its comparable distribution..

So it should be D .



I was stuck between C and D and eliminated D on following grounds.

D introduced 'numbers' and this is the red flag. The argument never spoke about number of bottles. But yes, it DID speak about 'willingness' of people- 'five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities'. So, numbers looses points against willingness.

Further, talking about 'number of bottles' as in D, this info can go either way, its not sufficient to conclude anything:-

Case 1:
In state X:
Total purchased= 100
Total recycled= 75

In state O (Other):
Total purchased= 100 (comparable to X)
Total recycled= 90
Hence O is (or rather seems to be) more successful

Case 2:
In state X:
Total purchased= 100
Total recycled= 20

In state O:
Total purchased= 10 (way less than X)
Total recycled= 10
Hence O is still successful(or is it?)

The point is, we dont know what does 'more success' mean in terms of number. It can be percent/proportion/number of bottles recycled. And therefore, like in a DS question, providing 'number of bottles' is insufficient to conclude anything. :)

Hope the explanation makes sense.

No wonder why CR questions involving numbers are tricky :?
_________________

One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all... :thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain

Kudos [?]: 127 [0], given: 142

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2015
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 11

Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2015, 22:56
I would opt for C because if the citizens were not enthusiastic from the beginning itself, then it would definitely strengthen the validity of the argument. And if they were enthusiastic, only then can it mean that there would be some other reason.

So, in this case, Enthusiasm would be a more compelling reason which is given by option C.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 11

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 367

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 211

Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Feb 2016, 06:26
souvik101990 wrote:
New Project - Reviving the hardest questions on GMAT Club. Kudos for every reply with an explanation in the first 24 hours!


Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminium cans are recycled. This is, the advocates say, because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in analyzing the significance of the study referenced above?

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program?
B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers?
C) When the five-cent deposit programs were implemented, were the citizens of the states that began programs as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states?
D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?
E) Where the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding?


MY PRETHINKING WAS: A statement that shows that another factor was responsible for the success other than the the five-percent programme.
Something else must have played into the non-programme states in their recycling success.
C!

Kudos [?]: 156 [0], given: 211

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10131

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2016, 10:15
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.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Jan 2016
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: 6 [2], given: 35

Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.6
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2016, 20:13
2
This post received
KUDOS
The way the question is worded confused me, but through POE, D seemed like the correct choice.

This is the explanation for the solution on Veritas

Correct answer: D This is a resolve the paradox question. In this question you are asked to explain why the states without a bottle deposit program had more success in implementing a comprehensive recycling program. This is surprising because a bottle deposit program provides a strong incentive for people to recycle plastic, glass, and aluminum beverage containers. Choice D is the correct answer. Remember, you are trying to explain why states without a bottle deposit program had more “success in implementing a comprehensive recycling program.” Choice D indicates that Aluminum cans will “pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program” when they are included, rather than being taken out of the recycling stream and into a separate beverage bottle deposit program; this points to greater success in implementing a comprehensive program.

Choice A is interesting and tempting. If the bottle deposit programs are not convenient and not popular then this would impact people’s motivation. However, even if unpopular these laws provide a “strong incentive for people to recycle these containers. So this does not explain why states without this program would have more success. Choice B cannot be the answer because you cannot explain why one thing is more successful simply by pointing to something that the two programs have in common. If I want to explain why you are more successful on the GMAT than I am I cannot say that we each get 75 minutes for the Verbal section. Choice C points in the wrong direction. It indicates a reason why the states with the bottle deposit program would be more successful. Choice E indicates that there are more states with bottle deposit programs but this does not tell us why these states are not as successful.

_________________

If you like my post, please send some kudos! :D

Kudos [?]: 6 [2], given: 35

CEO
CEO
User avatar
G
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2605

Kudos [?]: 393 [0], given: 182

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2016, 08:52
souvik101990 wrote:
New Project - Reviving the hardest questions on GMAT Club. Kudos for every reply with an explanation in the first 24 hours!


Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminium cans are recycled. This is, the advocates say, because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in analyzing the significance of the study referenced above?

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program?
B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers?
C) When the five-cent deposit programs were implemented, were the citizens of the states that began programs as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states?
D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?
E) Where the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding?


oh wow...tough choice...I picked C, and saw the results 43% - C, 43%-D
I see why D is tempting...the greater the consumption, the higher the probability of recycled products.

Kudos [?]: 393 [0], given: 182

VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1155

Kudos [?]: 1170 [0], given: 412

Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Apr 2017, 08:20
SOURH7WK wrote:
Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminum cans are recycled. This is, the advocates say, because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

Which of the following, if true, would help explain the results of the study?

(A) Bottle deposit programs are increasingly unpopular in state legislatures and may soon be replaced with comprehensive recycling programs.
(B) The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.
(C) Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.
(D) Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive recycling program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for the costs of the entire program.
(E) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.


OFFICIAL EXPLANATION


Correct answer: D This is a resolve the paradox question. In this question you are asked to explain why the states without a bottle deposit program had more success in implementing a comprehensive recycling program. This is surprising because a bottle deposit program provides a strong incentive for people to recycle plastic, glass, and aluminum beverage containers. Choice D is the correct answer. Remember, you are trying to explain why states without a bottle deposit program had more “success in implementing a comprehensive recycling program.” Choice D indicates that Aluminum cans will “pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program” when they are included, rather than being taken out of the recycling stream and into a separate beverage bottle deposit program; this points to greater success in implementing a comprehensive program.

Choice A is interesting and tempting. If the bottle deposit programs are not convenient and not popular then this would impact people’s motivation. However, even if unpopular these laws provide a “strong incentive for people to recycle these containers. So this does not explain why states without this program would have more success. Choice B cannot be the answer because you cannot explain why one thing is more successful simply by pointing to something that the two programs have in common. If I want to explain why you are more successful on the GMAT than I am I cannot say that we each get 75 minutes for the Verbal section. Choice C points in the wrong direction. It indicates a reason why the states with the bottle deposit program would be more successful. Choice E indicates that there are more states with bottle deposit programs but this does not tell us why these states are not as successful.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Kudos [?]: 1170 [0], given: 412

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 29 May 2016
Posts: 132

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 345

CAT Tests
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Apr 2017, 12:24
A :- program for beverage containerswith five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers for bottles recycling.
B :- program paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers

B is more successful than doing A alone
so basically A+B not more than B
thus A has not added any value.
D straight

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 345

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 208

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 33

GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2017, 10:19
In an Inference question, the correct answer must be true. Accordingly, you should hold every answer choice up to that test: if it could be false, then you can eliminated it.
Choice A here is probably true, but not guaranteed: the coach says that even the most unbelievable records will LIKELY be broken, but not that they will all be broken. Note that predictions are very hard to make in Inference questions, as much like your insurance policy they're subject to the "act of god" clause - if a meteor hits the earth and wipes out humankind, then no world records will ever be broken!
Choice B is similarly incorrect: true champions know that records will likely broken, but that doesn't mean that they cannot make predictions about whether their record is one of the few that may never be broken.
Choice C may look tempting, but look back at what the Olympic champion says: "I'm not sure" the record will ever be broken. This stops short of saying "it will not be broken," so you cannot conclusively say that he is not a true champion.
Choice D goes just a bit too far, again because the coach's point is that records will likely be broken, which is a bit short of saying that all will be broken.
Choice E is correct, in large part because of the adequately-measured wording "could be broken." Since any true champion knows that a record could be broken, if a champion does not at least think that the record could be broken he then does not fit that definition of a true champion.
_________________

we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender!

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 33

Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on   [#permalink] 19 Aug 2017, 10:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.