It is currently 22 Sep 2017, 10:26

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 359

Kudos [?]: 440 [3], given: 50

Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2012, 03:36
3
KUDOS
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

29% (01:51) correct 71% (01:57) wrong based on 1232 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?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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

Last edited by SOURH7WK on 18 Aug 2012, 11:14, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 440 [3], given: 50

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 359

Kudos [?]: 440 [3], given: 50

Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2012, 03:49
3
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Last edited by SOURH7WK on 18 Aug 2012, 11:15, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 440 [3], given: 50

Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 537

Kudos [?]: 349 [3], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2012, 04:23
3
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 349 [3], given: 75

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4272

Kudos [?]: 7609 [0], given: 360

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)

### Show Tags

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

_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7609 [0], given: 360

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4272

Kudos [?]: 7609 [0], given: 360

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)

### Show Tags

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
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7609 [0], given: 360

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 265

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2012, 08:34
Spelling and grammar mistakes in both stimulus and answer choices. What's the source of this question?
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 265

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 265

Kudos [?]: 76 [2], given: 6

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2012, 08:57
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Kudos [?]: 76 [2], given: 6

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10171

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2014, 20:50
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 [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 452

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 58

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 09:11
I don't understand the answer to this.
Nowhere is it mentioned that people will get money if they recycle.
In fact, the opposite can be understood. There is no program, so there is no reimbursement on recyclables.

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 58

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4198

Kudos [?]: 16269 [4], given: 1953

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2014, 13:03
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
16
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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?
_________________

Kudos [?]: 16269 [4], given: 1953

Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2013
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 59 [1], given: 253

Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2014, 17:31
1
KUDOS
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

Kudos [?]: 59 [1], given: 253

Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 195

Kudos [?]: 378 [0], given: 886

Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2014, 05:00
Can someone post the answer to this question.
It seems that none of the choices match the answer.
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Kudos [?]: 378 [0], given: 886

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 806 [1], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2014, 09:33
1
KUDOS
: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.

Last edited by WillGetIt on 06 Feb 2015, 04:20, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 806 [1], given: 30

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4198

Kudos [?]: 16269 [0], given: 1953

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2014, 12:04

Kudos [?]: 16269 [0], given: 1953

Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 57 [1], given: 66

Concentration: Marketing

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2014, 12:29
1
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 57 [1], given: 66

Manager
Joined: 18 Nov 2013
Posts: 79

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 7

Location: India
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

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?

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.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 7

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 196

Kudos [?]: 806 [0], given: 30

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2014, 06:09
After thorough analysis I think it is (C).

Looking for expert replies.

Last edited by WillGetIt on 06 Feb 2015, 04:24, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 806 [0], given: 30

Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2012
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 2

Schools: Katz '18 (S)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V28

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 49

### Show Tags

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)

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 49

Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits   [#permalink] 15 Apr 2015, 09:15

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 The lobbyists argued that because there is no statistical 8 20 Jul 2016, 11:38
6 Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government 4 20 Mar 2017, 22:35
1 John would also like to argue that the deposit laws are unfair because 1 26 May 2017, 03:50
1 Alcohol-control advocates argue that television advertising plays a la 2 15 Jan 2017, 14:37
6 Consumer advocates argue that the coating found on non-stick 7 24 Jul 2016, 07:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by