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

It is currently 21 Aug 2019, 04:56

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

Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 27
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2012, 05:33
7
1
25
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:57) correct 32% (02:15) wrong based on 1035 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.

Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

(A) Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.

(B) A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.

(C) A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.

(D) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.

(E) Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

Just posting this for anyone who's been using "The Most Comprehensive Collection of Everything Official - CR" study guide. The answer given as correct is "C" in the guide, but searching the internet for an explanation as to why it's "C", I found out that "B" is actually the correct answer, which eased my frustration.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 255
Schools: LBS '14 (A$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2012, 05:48
11
Hi,

Here we go....

Brochure is saying: Convert your garden & save money
Critique: Whilst you will save money on waterbills. The amount saved will be far less than the amount spent on the conversion.

So - we need to look for some discussion on the benefits,and relative costs


A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes. No - this doesn't work. The criticism needs to be overcome by taking on the cost challenge - this does not mention it
B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape. Looks good. It provides extra financial benefits for changing the garden over. This is exactly what we need
C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards. Nope. No reference to the cost/benefits of the procedure
D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping. Nope. This is no good, as it does not talk about the cost/benefit of a conversion. The cost of a traditional landscape is not relevant here.
E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined. Nope. Not interested in the amount of water people use all over their house. Question is does it save them money to convert.
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Posts: 411
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GPA: 3.23
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Feb 2013, 01:18
1
Brochure: Water-Conserving Landscape saves you money.
Criticism: Conversion cannot justify the expenses of converting to new landscape. Savings on Water bills as support.

A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
Strengthens the Criticism's argument. OUT!

B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
Conventional landscape has greater expenditure on other factors than water.. Weakens the Criticism's argument...

C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
We are just concerned on those who will convert from conventional to new landscape... NEUTRAL... OUT!

D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
Strengthens the Criticism's argument... OUT!

E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.
Some could refer to just 1... This is showing that savings could be substantial for this portion of homeowners.. BUT B is better...

ANSWER: B
_________________
Impossible is nothing to God.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Aug 2013
Posts: 67
Re: Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 May 2015, 12:39
mbaiseasy wrote:
Brochure: Water-Conserving Landscape saves you money.
Criticism: Conversion cannot justify the expenses of converting to new landscape. Savings on Water bills as support.

A. Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
Strengthens the Criticism's argument. OUT!

B. A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
Conventional landscape has greater expenditure on other factors than water.. Weakens the Criticism's argument...

C. A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
We are just concerned on those who will convert from conventional to new landscape... NEUTRAL... OUT!

D. It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
Strengthens the Criticism's argument... OUT!

E. Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.
Some could refer to just 1... This is showing that savings could be substantial for this portion of homeowners.. BUT B is better...

ANSWER: B




just a clarification with all due respect;
option E i think doesnt come into picture. Reason being, its not just the savings that we are concerned about, its the saving FROM THE CONVERSION thats to be taken into consideration. converting into water conserving landscaping will save money is what we need to look for, not just the savings. we are to rebut the claim, not the monetary part. had it been just the monetary part and option B weren't there, probably E would have been the right answer since you use more money, setup a water conserving landscape, it'll save you money.

Give it a thought though, im pretty sure you considered this fact. :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 220
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Re: Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2015, 00:27
B
Critic's Conclusion - savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping
Premise - the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills
The conversion only saves a little on the water bills but what if the new landscaping saves more elsewhere such as giving more benefits to users to justify cost, lower maintenance costs and other things

B says it will lower maintenance cost - thus this is the answer
D - the new landscaping cost is same as the old version but the point is replacing the old one would cost some money and y should people replace
E - This out of scope as it doesn't qualify either the benefits of the new landscaping or the cost
_________________
Apoorv

I realize that i cannot change the world....But i can play a part :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Oct 2016
Posts: 124
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2018, 06:24
1
youngkacha wrote:
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.

Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

(A) Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.
(B) A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.
(C) A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.
(D) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.
(E) Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.


As highlighted above, we have to hurt the argument by "Criticism".
Criticism indirectly says that because "savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape ($20/year) cannot justify the expense of new landscaping" so, we should not convert. We need to hurt this particular point. Option B says that "A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape." which means that we will actually save more money by water-conserving and hence, we should convert.

Answer: (B).

_________________
:-) Non-Allergic To Kudos :-)
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1365
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
CAT Tests
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2019, 19:16
DavidTutorexamPAL VeritasKarishma generis

I would like to clarify correct approach in such questions:

Quote:
Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

i.e. Weaken Criticism 's claim
This does not mean : Strengthen Brochure's claim

Quote:
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.

Use water-conserving landscape, since it will reduce water usage, save money and it also attractive

Quote:
Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Goes against above claim, by stating that conversion to water-conserving landscape would not save annual
water bills by huge amount and the conversion itself is expensive.

After reading question stem, I thought to strengthen brochure's claim and hence selected (D)
Quote:
(D) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.

One way to weaken Criticism's claim is to say: yes, go for water-conserving landscaping.
This options says installing water-conserving landscaping incurs same expense as conventional landscaping.

Can you advise where did I falter?
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9547
Location: Pune, India
Re: Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2019, 06:20
1
youngkacha wrote:
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.

Criticism: For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

(A) Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.

(B) A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.

(C) A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.

(D) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.

(E) Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

Just posting this for anyone who's been using "The Most Comprehensive Collection of Everything Official - CR" study guide. The answer given as correct is "C" in the guide, but searching the internet for an explanation as to why it's "C", I found out that "B" is actually the correct answer, which eased my frustration.


Brochure: Convert your landscape to a water-conserving landscape - you reduce your outdoor water use, its natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.

Criticism (against the brochure claim of 'saves you money'): Conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills. This saving cannot justify the expense of new landscaping.
(Say new landscaping costs $1000 which is an extra expense one needs to change. The saving per year on water bill would be just $20 per year so even in 30 years, it will add up to only $600. Hence, the added expense right now is not justified. With the regular yard, current expense required is nothing)

We need to rebut the criticism. So we need to say why changing to water-conserving landscape does save you money.

(A) Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.

We need to rebut the criticism which focusses on saving money.

(B) A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.

Here is another reason why water-conserving landscape will help save money. So the $600 saving could become $1200 (just as an example). Hence, this helps rebut the criticism.

(C) A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.

Irrelevant

(D) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.

The point is that CHANGING the yard will cost money. The argument talks about conventional landscaping getting REPLACED by water saving one. If both landscaping cost the same, it is a good idea to install water saving one in the beginning. But changing will require $1000 extra. Hence it doesn't help rebut the criticism.

(E) Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

Irrelevant.

Answer (B)
_________________
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: Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan   [#permalink] 16 Aug 2019, 06:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan

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





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