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

It is currently 16 Oct 2018, 22:50

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

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
18
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:57) correct 32% (02:10) wrong based on 1240 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: 284
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
10
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: 431
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: 76
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: 240
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: 129
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2018, 06:24
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 :-)

GMAT Club Bot
Brochure: Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the lan &nbs [#permalink] 04 May 2018, 06:24
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  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.