GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 15 Jul 2018, 14:06

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

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

5 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 335
Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)
Reviews Badge
Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 18 Aug 2012, 11:14
5
7
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

29% (01:52) correct 71% (01:57) wrong based on 1447 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

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?

_________________

Regards
SD
-----------------------------
Press Kudos if you like my post.
Debrief 610-540-580-710(Long Journey): http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-600-540-580-710-finally-achieved-in-4th-attempt-142456.html


Originally posted by SOURH7WK on 18 Aug 2012, 03:36.
Last edited by SOURH7WK on 18 Aug 2012, 11:14, edited 1 time in total.
Most Helpful Community Reply
3 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 335
Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)
Reviews Badge
Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 18 Aug 2012, 11:15
3
7
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.
_________________

Regards
SD
-----------------------------
Press Kudos if you like my post.
Debrief 610-540-580-710(Long Journey): http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-600-540-580-710-finally-achieved-in-4th-attempt-142456.html


Originally posted by SOURH7WK on 18 Aug 2012, 03:49.
Last edited by SOURH7WK on 18 Aug 2012, 11:15, edited 1 time in total.
General Discussion
3 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 492
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 04:23
3
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.correct
individual pay back on bottles doesn't lure people as much as the cost of entire program.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4442
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 05:37
Critical thinking implies any program need to be profitable for sustainable continuance. It is known world universally that recycling is one of the profitable strategies. It is not enthusiasm that will be the mainstay of any project. Let us take this case; the passage says that there are states without deposit law, but still continuing to recycle beverages, along with many others. One might enthusiastic to start with any schemes, but would not bother a while later, if they were to lose money consistently. So I would reckon that the deposit law countries were losing in spite of the incentives on cans, sand hence they are lagging behind other countries.

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program? --looks like it is the best choice -it is all in the money, you see
B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers? …. Preference is irrelevant here.
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? ---- Initial enthusiasm is not a valid reason for project's sustenance
D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers? --- does not take into account the other comprehensive recycling programs
E) were the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding? ------ funding cane compared on such wide ranging factors. Funding can be compared only between bottle recycling vs. bottle recycling and not with steel, paper or plastics. Irrelevant comparison

_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4442
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 06:02
A program that has plenty of profit overall has the resilience to carry other less profitable projects associated with it. This is what is happening in Aluminum recycling. So, over a period, comprehensive programs that would include aluminum recycling, would sustain and win over bottle recycling programs that are run exclusively

A) Bottle deposit programs are increasingly unpopular in state legislatures and may soon be replaced with comprehensive recycling programs. ---state legislature is an unnecessary insinuation in the context.

B) The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used. ----does not help to resolve the paradox

C) Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect. --- If it were true, the finding turns irrelevant

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. --- Must be the reason, why comprehensive programs are over performing compared to stand-alone bottle recycling

E) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs. --- Contra to the professed findings of the study

D is the best
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 233
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 08:53
Here's a link to the solution if you are interested.

http://www.beatthegmat.com/instructor-h ... 92121.html
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 233
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 08:57
2
2
Dear daagh et al,

This question was authored by a Veritas Instructor; according to him the answer is C. Personally, I like to attempt only validly certified critical reasoning questions from GMAC or the LSAC, because I think many CR questions authored by non-psychometricians lack a certain je ne sais quoi.

Anyway, if you are still interested in answering this question, here's the link to the author's explanation:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/instructor-h ... 92121.html

Cheers,
Der alte Fritz
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Aug 2013
Posts: 91
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2014, 17:31
1
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?



I think the correct Answer should be D . Here's why:

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program? Incorrect This is not relevant to evaluate the argument

B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers?Incorrect The preference of the citizens doesnt matter to the relevance of argument.

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?Incorrect Enthusiasm of the citizens is not relevant here

D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?Correct If we take this choice to extremes that no of containers were not same then it weakens the conclusion that recycling programs for states which did not implement five cent program were more successful , on the other hand if the number were same then it strengthens the argument that yes states without 5 cent program were more successful.


E) Were the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding? Incorrect Funding is not relevant here.




Thanks
AK
Please press Kudos for the encouragement :-D
1 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 189
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 06 Feb 2015, 04:20
1
:Analysis:

State X: On beverage (plastic, glass and aluminum) containers consumer need to submit 5 cents as per law
: The 5 cents can be returned to get back their hard earned money back

State O (Others): Have no such program as state X


Effectiveness of recycling program (Paper + Plastic + Steel + Beverages waste):


State O > State X

Pre thinking:

So what could be most critical possibilities to analyses this argument. I though of following possibilities:

(a) There could be less amount of recyclable waste in state O

(b) There could be high amount of recyclable waste (other than beverages), which could be managed in much better way

(C) Citizens of state O are actually more environmental friendly and hence willing to participate in recycling irrespective of the financial incentives

Hmn...So choice C is looking good for me.

Moreover earlier I got confused with (D) but comparable purchases does not necessarily mean that it will generate similar proportion of waste. Or we can not derive any correlation what so ever.

Hope it helps.

Originally posted by WillGetIt on 23 Nov 2014, 09:33.
Last edited by WillGetIt on 06 Feb 2015, 04:20, edited 1 time in total.
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Posts: 98
Concentration: Marketing
Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Nov 2014, 12:29
1
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.

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

We require a question that will supply us an answer that will help us figure out why the states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs.

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program?
Revenue is irrelevant to the implementation of the recycling programs.

B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers?
We only care about why the states that did have a bottle deposit were not recycling as much as the states without the bottle deposits.

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?
States who are enthusiastic about recycling and don't have bottle deposits may recycle more than states who don't like to recycle but have a bottle deposit program.

D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?
The success isn't measured by the quantity of recyclables but by the rate of beverage containers that become recycled.

E) Where the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding?
Irrelevant comparison. The bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs are not the same and thus can not be compared.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2013
Posts: 74
Location: India
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2014, 05:02
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?

Answer should be C, imo.

What I did was, focused on the question stem. It says, most useful in analyzing the significance of the study referenced above. So now I know what I'm looking for in the argument (this argument is very, very dense!)

A - Irrelevant. We are not concerned whether any states lost any revenue. If 1 of the states loses revenue and the others don't, this won't align with the argument.
B - Irrelevant. Citizens' preference is not in question.
C - Sort of relevant. If the citizens were less enthusiastic about the bottle deposit law/program, the number of people using the program would be fewer. Hence, the program wouldn't be as successful.
D - Irrelevant. Comparable number isn't an indication.
E - Same as above.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 8
Schools: Katz '18 (S)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V28
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2015, 06:56
It should be C

If the citizens of the states that began programs were as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states (where recycling was successful without this program) - Then the states were this bottle program was implemented would have achieved the intended recycling objective without this program - then no need of program.

If these citizens were not as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states - then bottle program did wonders.

So if as enthusiastic - then there is no role that bottle program played
and if not as enthusiastic - then bottle program played a vital role.

So C is the Evaluation point and most useful if analyzing whether bottle program was responsible or otherwise people were already enthusiastic.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 174
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2015, 09:15
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?


Here we are told that comprehensive recycling program was more successful than five cent redemption.
Whether citizens were enthusiastic or not about five cent deposit program does not matter about bcz ultimately it was not successful.
In d,if the basis of comparison is not just then argument will certainly fail.(variance test)
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Posts: 76
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 !

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2013
Posts: 11
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 9
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 5625 times ]

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 206
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 =)

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Status: One Last Shot !!!
Joined: 04 May 2014
Posts: 246
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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Apr 2015
Posts: 4
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 339
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!
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits   [#permalink] 24 Feb 2016, 06:26

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 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  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.