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

It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 02:41

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 beverage con

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 276
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 beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 19 Jun 2019, 01:24
9
1
18
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

30% (02:26) correct 70% (02:29) wrong based on 1368 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 Bunuel on 19 Jun 2019, 01:24, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 406
Location: United States (NY)
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#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
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5101
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 05:37
1
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

_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't make out how to pole-vault over the 630-barrier, you can do so with my one-to-one lessons. (+919884544509)
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5101
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2012, 06:02
1
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
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't make out how to pole-vault over the 630-barrier, you can do so with my one-to-one lessons. (+919884544509)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Aug 2013
Posts: 89
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2014, 17:31
2
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
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2013
Posts: 178
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT Date: 11-23-2015
GPA: 3.6
WE: Science (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 06 Feb 2015, 04:20
1
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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Posts: 85
Concentration: Marketing
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Nov 2014, 12:29
3
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: 62
Location: India
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2014, 05:02
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?

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: 28 Feb 2013
Posts: 5
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#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: 6
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
Reviews Badge
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2015, 23:11
1
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 10013 times ]

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 147
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Apr 2015, 07:47
1
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: 229
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 charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2015, 13:02
1
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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 299
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Feb 2016, 06:26
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?


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!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 189
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#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!
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Sep 2018
Posts: 63
CAT Tests
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2019, 11:14
Could someone help to shed some light on why option C is a better option than D?

I had chosen option D for the following reasons. Please help.

1. put $ on containers - > why? -> for environmental protection -> how? -> will ensure that they are recycled
2. put $ on containers -> gives incentive -> to recycle
3. Recent study: no $ -> more comprehensive recycling programs (included paper also)

So we need something to prove why the study was valid.

Why is option C wrong?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9704
Location: Pune, India
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2019, 01:00
1
Leonaann wrote:
Could someone help to shed some light on why option C is a better option than D?

I had chosen option D for the following reasons. Please help.

1. put $ on containers - > why? -> for environmental protection -> how? -> will ensure that they are recycled
2. put $ on containers -> gives incentive -> to recycle
3. Recent study: no $ -> more comprehensive recycling programs (included paper also)

So we need something to prove why the study was valid.

Why is option C wrong?


As is common with study/survey questions, it is important to know whether the groups being compared are actually comparable.
e.g. say in a study, people were divided into two equal groups. One group was put on a sea food diet and the other group was put on a lean meat diet. After 6 months, the average cholesterol level of group 1 was substantially lower than that of group 2.
Now to understand the validity of this result, we need to know multiple things:
1. Was the average cholesterol of group 1 comparable with that of group 2 before the study?
2. Were the exercise, medicine etc regimes of both groups the same?
etc

Let's get on with our original question now: 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.
So the study says that states without a bottle deposit have more successful comprehensive recycling programs. What we need to understand is whether the two study groups (states with bottle deposit and states without bottle deposit) are comparable.

What does option (C) say?
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?
The question is whether the states with bottle deposit were on similar level of enthusiasm before implementation as states without bottle deposit. This is similar to point 1 of example above.
Was the level of recycling similar of the two groups before the bottle deposit program started? The logic of this is that what if bottle deposit program was started in states which had very low enthusiasm towards recycling? Perhaps the bottle deposit program improved enthusiasm. The level of recycling may not be the same as in those states where the enthusiasm for recycling was anyway high but still an improvement from before. Hence it is good to know whether the level of enthusiasm in the two sets was same before the program was implemented.
This is the answer.

As for (D),
D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminium containers?
The measure of success of the recycling program would be a relative parameter such as percentage of recyclable material that actually gets recycled. Say 10 million tonne of recyclable material is sold in a year in the form of beverage bottles etc. The measure of success of the program could be what percentage of this 10 million tonnes comes back to be recycled. So the actual number of bottles etc is irrelevant.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 16
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2019, 04:54
VeritasKarishma

Can you help explain why D is correct in this question? The question stem and answer choices are different from above.

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 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 less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.
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 program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.
e) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Dec 2017
Posts: 25
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2019, 02:10
i choose E as that is the only comparable diffrence i could see. D is not the answer because it talks about the bottles only. But C can never be the answer. Can u please explain the reasoning behind choosing C.
Target Test Prep Representative
User avatar
P
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 618
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2019, 07:36
saury2k wrote:
i choose E as that is the only comparable diffrence i could see. D is not the answer because it talks about the bottles only. But C can never be the answer. Can u please explain the reasoning behind choosing C.

This question has a cause-and-effect theme, the cause being the presence of deposits and the effect being the degree success of recycling programs.

What choice (C) does is bring up the question of whether there is an additional cause of degree of success of recycling programs that has not been addressed in the discussion in the passage, enthusiasm for recycling.

Here's (C).

(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?

If the answer to (C) is "Yes," the answer is information indicating that the study is significant, because we can use that information to rule out the possibility that the reason for the differences in degree of success of recycling programs is not the deposits but, rather, differences in degree of enthusiasm.

If the answer to (C) is "No," the answer is information indicating that the study may be less significant than it appears to be, because if the the citizens in the states that have the deposits were less enthusiastic, then this difference in enthusiasm, rather than the presence of the deposits, may explain the differences in success of the programs.

Either way, the answer to (C) helps us to evaluate the significance of the findings.
_________________

Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
TTP - Target Test Prep Logo
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9704
Location: Pune, India
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2019, 02:19
jyotsnamahajan wrote:
VeritasKarishma

Can you help explain why D is correct in this question? The question stem and answer choices are different from above.

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 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 less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.
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 program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.
e) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.


Some states have bottle deposit programs (plastic, glass, aluminium) and some don't (so some states keep a deposit when selling beverages which you get back when you return the empty bottle).
Bottle deposit programs provide strong incentive to recycle.
Now, comprehensive recycling programs were implemented (including paper, plastics and steel too)

A recent study found that states without a bottle deposit program had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs than did states with a bottle deposit law.
So comprehensive programs were more successful in states without bottle deposit programs than in states which have bottle deposit programs too. The comprehensive program would include paper, plastics, steel and beverage containers in states without bottle deposit programs. In states with bottle deposit programs, the beverage containers (including aluminium cans) would be returned under bottle deposit programs.

What explains this report?

a) Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.
Bottle deposit programs are less convenient but provide strong financial incentives. So are people preferring financial incentives over convenience or the other way around, we don't know.
The programs are unpopular in state legislatures so fewer states may implement them in future. But it doesn't tell us anything about the success/failure of the program in existing states.

b) The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.

In that case, states with bottle deposit programs should do better. More people will deposit bottles while same number will deposit other things. Does not explain the result of the study.

c) Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.

In this case states with bottle deposit program should do better. Does not explain the result of the study.

d) Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.

If aluminium cans are included in the the comprehensive program, they bring in good returns since aluminium is expensive.
If aluminium cans are a part of a separate bottle deposit program, the bottle deposit program would do well but the comprehensive program may not do well. The return from aluminium cans will not be added to the comprehensive program in this case.
This could explain why comprehensive programs are doing better in states without bottle deposit programs.

e) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.
The number is irrelevant.

Answer (D)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con   [#permalink] 03 Jun 2019, 02:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con

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





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