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

Question

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.

plumber250 · Accepted Answer

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.

mbaiseasy · Answer

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

arnabs · Answer

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.

apoorv601 · Answer

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

seed · Answer

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).

adkikani · Answer

DavidTutorexamPAL   VeritasKarishma   generis

I would like to clarify correct approach in such questions:

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

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

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)
 
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?

KarishmaB · Answer

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)

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The given argument is presented in the form of two separate arguments – one made in a brochure and the other, a criticism of the former.

The brochure concludes that outdoor usage of water can be reduced by converting the landscaping in one’s yard to a water-conserving landscape. It adds that such a process would also help save money.

The criticism of this argument is that the conversion to a water-conserving landscape would not justify the expense of new landscaping since this would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner’s yearly water bills, thereby implying that the conversion would not really help to save money.

The question asks us to  weaken the criticism . To do that, the option must provide information to show that the expense can be justified at least by helping to save money in some way.  That is what Option B does.  It provides information to show that while there might be only a small saving on water, a homeowner can also save on fertilizer and herbicide, which are a considerable expense with conventional landscaping. So, by changing to a water-conserving landscape, a homeowner can save water and money.

Option C is the easiest option to eliminate.  It rules out the whole question of whether to convert to a water-conserving landscape by stating that a significant portion of residents live in places that do not have yards. So, Option C is irrelevant.

Option E  can also be ruled out quite easily as it discusses water usage other than for the garden. The topic under discussion is the usage of water outdoors. Furthermore, the topic doesn't touch upon saving money.

Option A  can also be ruled out because it mentions other ways of conserving water. The argument is about water-conserving landscapes.

The argument is about whether water-conserving landscapes will help to save water and money. Option D discusses the cost of putting in a water-conserving landscape, not the saving that results from it.  So, Option D is also incorrect.

Therefore, B is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

akt715 · Answer

Why Option D is incorrect
Option D says that cost is same for both types of landscape and As per argument , water -saving landscape does save on water bills . So doesn't it make having water-saving landscape more beneficial than normal one

KarishmaB · Answer

Sure, having water saving landscape is more beneficial if you are getting a new one - they both cost the same to get but water-saving saves you some money in future. 
But the point being made in the argument is about conversion. 
 "By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape..." 
You already have a regular landscape. The argument is asking you to convert it to water saving one. That will cost a decent sum now (you already spent to get the regular landscape in the past). Now converting will cost more. So before you convert, you need to compare conversion costs with future savings.

Think of another example: Cars
If the cost of buying a petrol car were the same as the cost of buying CNG car, you would prefer the CNG because of the money it will save you. (CNG fuel is cheaper)
But what if you already have a petrol car and converting it to CNG will cost a decent sum? Will you change? That depends on how much you will save on fuel costs in the future and what are conversion costs right now.
The argument is all about conversion, not a new beginning.

btsaami · Answer

Brochure:  Converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape to conserve water, can reduce your outdoor water use and is cost effective.
 Criticism:  The savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping
 Assumption:  Water landscaping is not much cost effective and doesn't provide benefit over the other existing cost of converting landscape (no other hidden cost of old/existing landscape, etc)
 Prethinking:  Undermines the assumption. Something which counters criticism by saying that the water landscape is more cost effective than thought or the saved more has high impact.
 Why correct?  (B) A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape. --> People will save more money than previously thought as a result of decreased usage of fertilizers & herbicide. In line with prethinking which says water landscape is more cost effective. 
 Why wrong? 
(A) Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes. --> Out of scope as it suggests a different method altogether w/o exploring the cost effective of water landscape.
(C) A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards. --> This supports with other reason why plan might fail but not within the scope.

(D) It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping. --> Same cost in putting water landscape is irrelevant because it might still cost more to convert to water landscape from existing landscape and the saving can still not be up to the mark.

(E) Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.--> Irrelevant. What the water is used for doesn't confirm the cost saving impact in switching to water landscape.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards