Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 17 Jul 2019, 15:42

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56277

Show Tags

19 Jun 2019, 01:28
1
2
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

39% (02:31) correct 61% (02:35) wrong based on 95 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 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.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 169
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Jun 2019, 02:38
Quote:
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.

Aim: To find an explanation that resolves the paradox.

A. Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.
May be so but that doesn't resolve the paradox- why other states are doing better ?

B. The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.
Similar to A- does nothing to explain why other states (without the five-cent bottle deposit) are doing better.

C. Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.
Opposite of what we are looking for. According to option C, the five-cent program should have been more successful.

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.
Sounds right. Now we know the incentive for going for the comprehensive program. It is a smart financial decision.
Correct.

E. There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.
According to the argument,
'states without a bottle deposit had more success'
The argument is not comparing the number of states. Rather, it is concerned about the success within the state versus success within other state/s.
_________________
Hit Kudos to keep the community alive !
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 56277
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con  [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Jun 2019, 00:07
1
Bunuel wrote:
Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminum cans are recycled. This is 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.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

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

Choice A is interesting and tempting. If the bottle deposit programs are not convenient and not popular then this would impact people’s motivation. However, even if unpopular these laws provide a “strong incentive for people to recycle these containers. So this does not explain why states without this program would have more success. Choice B cannot be the answer because you cannot explain why one thing is more successful simply by pointing to something that the two programs have in common. If I want to explain why you are more successful on the GMAT than I am I cannot say that we each get 75 minutes for the Verbal section. Choice C points in the wrong direction. It indicates a reason why the states with the bottle deposit program would be more successful. Choice E indicates that there are more states with bottle deposit programs but this does not tell us why these states are not as successful.
_________________
Re: Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con   [#permalink] 20 Jun 2019, 00:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by