Last visit was: 14 Sep 2024, 07:08 It is currently 14 Sep 2024, 07:08
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 227 [154]
Given Kudos: 0
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 158
Own Kudos [?]: 36 [18]
Given Kudos: 0
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 7056
Own Kudos [?]: 65098 [16]
Given Kudos: 1835
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
General Discussion
Director
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Own Kudos [?]: 1620 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
1
Kudos
mexicanhoney
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread recycling of aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(a) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

(b) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.

(c) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.

(d) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.

(e) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas the aluminum cans required no sorting.

C.
you have to find some other factors that cause glass weight to be less than aluminum. C fits this.
VP
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 1143
Own Kudos [?]: 1763 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
2
Bookmarks
mexicanhoney
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread recycling of aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(a) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

(b) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.

(c) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.

(d) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.

(e) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas the aluminum cans required no sorting.

This one is a bit tricky.

B: Irrelevant.
D: I think this suggests that the overal % should be greater.
E: Irrelevant.

Btwn A and C I was stuck. I chose C simply b/c I didn't feel right w/ A. I couldn't put my finger on it, but I felt that A was missing something crucial here.

Can someone please explain further why A is wrong?
Intern
Joined: 27 Mar 2013
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [3]
Given Kudos: 34
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
I think C is not the right answer, because in C it says that glass bottles are replaced by Plastic containers, it no where mentions the weight of the plastic containers, it might be possible that plastic containers are heavier than small size bottles.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 256
Own Kudos [?]: 1387 [6]
Given Kudos: 46
Location: United States
WE:Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
5
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
ankitasriv
I think C is not the right answer, because in C it says that glass bottles are replaced by Plastic containers, it no where mentions the weight of the plastic containers, it might be possible that plastic containers are heavier than small size bottles.

Paradox: glass decreased (%) more than aluminum did (%) even when recycling aluminum was more common.
You say the plastic containers can be heavier than glass bottles. That's fine. Plastic can be 1000 tons greater than glass. Still, the glass was replaced by plastic, and the paradox only requires explanation how glass decreased (%) more than aluminum (%).

I hope this helps.
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 792
Own Kudos [?]: 2619 [2]
Given Kudos: 567
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
2
Kudos
mexicanhoney
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread recycling of aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(a) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

(c) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.

I guess only contention is between Option A) and Option C) - OA is Option C)

Let me explain why Option A) is wrong (BTW : I marked option A in the Mock )

There is decline in the weight of the garbage and majority of the decline is weight is contributed by the recycling process.

Aluminium recycling > Glass recycling.

But decline in weight of aluminium bottles is less than decline in the weight of glass bottles. The question doesn't say that the relative decline of aluminium bottles is less than relative decline of glass bottles

Lets say 100Kgs of garbage

Now earlier out of 100 kgs, 30 kgs was contributed by AL bottles and 10 kgs (lets say) is contributed by GL bottles.
Lets say AL is heavier and is 1 Kg and GL bottles is 0.5 kg
So contribution for AL was 30% and for GL bottles it was 10%

Now lets say 10 AL bottles are recycled and lets say 8 bottles
So the weight of AL bottles decreases by 10 Kgs
and for GL it is 4 kgs.

So decline by weight of AL = 10/30 = 33.33%
And decline by weight of GL = 4/10 = 40%

Even though the recycle of AL bottles is more than recycle of GL bottles, the decline in the weight of GL as a % > decline in the weight of AL as a %.

C) is correct as denominator is changed by Manufacturers and hence it explains the paradox.
Current Student
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 353
Own Kudos [?]: 2776 [4]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.7
WE:Marketing (Telecommunications)
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
4
Kudos
(c) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
=> Weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
Percent Change = new-old/original, I mean, you calculate the change of one material compared to its original weight, and not the weight of the other material !

Aluminum canns 100 units -> recycled 50 and replaced with plastic 10 -> 40 units left over ----> Decrease 60%
Glass Bottles 100 units -> recycled 30 and replaced 50 with plastic -> 20 units left over ----> Decrease 80%

Also got trapped by A.....
Intern
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 45
Own Kudos [?]: 76 [2]
Given Kudos: 28
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
2
Kudos
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread recycling of aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(a) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.
This shouldn't matter. We are talking about the % decline over a period of time, not the overall weight.

(b) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.
This also shouldn't matter. Who cares what is inside the recycled glass bottles--the bottles are in the trash, so the contents of what was in them should be emptied or somewhere else. The conclusion is about the bottles in the trash, not the bottles before they enter the trash. Even if it were true, what's inside the glass bottles could be heavier or lighter than the aluminum cans.

(c) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
This is our answer. If manufacturers replaced the glass bottles with plastic, as a %, the weight of the glass bottles compared to everything else would go down. Since this says aluminum cans were replaced fewer than glass bottles, the conclusion makes logical sense.

(d) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.
If this were true, it would mean the conclusion of the stimulus should be exactly the opposite.

(e) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas the aluminum cans required no sorting.
This has nothing to do with the weight.
Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: United Kingdom
GPA: 3.57
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
1
Kudos
mexicanhoney
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread recycling of aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(a) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

(b) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.

(c) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.

(d) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.

(e) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas the aluminum cans required no sorting.

IMO C
a) Comparing the weight of the glass bottles and aluminum cans would not tell anything why the weight of the glass bottles declined in the garbage.
b) Even if the cans and bottles contained other products it is irrelevant in this scenario.
c) Because many glass bottles were replaced but fewer aluminum cans with plastic containers, and as the glass bottles weigh more reduction in the usage directly affects the weight.
d) Increase in the weight does not say anything for the de[/color]cline
e) Sorting the glass bottles does not change anything.
Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2016
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [0]
Given Kudos: 32
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q47 V42
WE:Accounting (Consulting)
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
GMATNinja

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 188
Own Kudos [?]: 218 [0]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
As per the statement it says most of "the decline of total % weight of beverage" is attributrf to recyclable aluminium and glass.

The aluminums were more recycled and glasses were not.

As per the logic, can't we deduce that the recycled glass was not returned back to the cycle?

I mean what if the glasses were used for other purposes on recycling. And option B fits properly for that.

I agree that c is right but why b is wrong ? Considering the above fact?

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2017
Posts: 127
Own Kudos [?]: 131 [1]
Given Kudos: 658
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V38
GPA: 3.8
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
1
Kudos
rish2708
As per the statement it says most of "the decline of total % weight of beverage" is attributrf to recyclable aluminium and glass.

The aluminums were more recycled and glasses were not.

As per the logic, can't we deduce that the recycled glass was not returned back to the cycle?

I mean what if the glasses were used for other purposes on recycling. And option B fits properly for that.

I agree that c is right but why b is wrong ? Considering the above fact?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Rish2708,

I think that your thinking is good, but I believe that you've misinterpreted B in some way. The passage talks about GALSS BOTTLES, so even if they contained something else, they were still brought to the cycle because they are the same recyclable objects.

Hope this helps
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]
Given Kudos: 12
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
GMATNinja

Quote:
(B) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.
If you look back at the "finding" in the passage, it does not mention beverage containers at all. We are concerned only with the weight of glass bottles and aluminum cans in the trash by percentage. The contents of those glass and aluminum objects are irrelevant to the conclusion, so answer (B) is out.
Hi! Can you explain why you say "it does not mention beverage containers at all"

The passage seems be specifically about"beverage containers". It says:

beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 7056
Own Kudos [?]: 65098 [1]
Given Kudos: 1835
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Manukaran
GMATNinja

Quote:
(B) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.
If you look back at the "finding" in the passage, it does not mention beverage containers at all. We are concerned only with the weight of glass bottles and aluminum cans in the trash by percentage. The contents of those glass and aluminum objects are irrelevant to the conclusion, so answer (B) is out.
Hi! Can you explain why you say "it does not mention beverage containers at all"

The passage seems be specifically about"beverage containers". It says:

beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States.
I was emphasizing that the finding (the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of aluminum cans) doesn't mention whether or not the bottles and cans contained beverages.

We eliminate (B) because the contents that these bottles and cans previously contained is irrelevant to explaining the discrepancy in % weight decrease of the bottles and the cans themselves.

I hope that helps!
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2018
Posts: 127
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 93
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]

I am always confused when the questions include percentages.

"it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans. "

How do I express this mathematically? Always confused about what to take the base as.

Is it (weight of glass bottles decreased)/total weight of garbage? (weight of glass bottles decreased)/ (total weight of glass bottles)

Always get stumped when they mention a percentage because I have difficulty in finding the base.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15302
Own Kudos [?]: 68054 [2]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: Pune, India
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
mallya12

I am always confused when the questions include percentages.

"it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans. "

How do I express this mathematically? Always confused about what to take the base as.

Is it (weight of glass bottles decreased)/total weight of garbage? (weight of glass bottles decreased)/ (total weight of glass bottles)

Always get stumped when they mention a percentage because I have difficulty in finding the base.

Weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminium cans.

Say weight of glass bottles was 100 tonnes in garbage.
It has declined to 80 tonnes i.e. a percentage reduction of 20/100 = 20% reduction in weight

Say weight of aluminium was 300 tonnes too.
If has declined to 270 tonnes i.e. a percentage reduction of 30/300 = 10% reduction in weight

So weight of glass bottles has seen a higher reduction in weight.

When we say A has increased/decreased by 10%, we are talking about the new value of A compared with the OLD value of A itself.
A number increased by 10% means now the number is 10% more than its previous value. So if the number were 50, it is now 55.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2017
Posts: 132
Own Kudos [?]: 56 [0]
Given Kudos: 225
Location: India
GRE 1: Q167 V162
GPA: 3.5
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
mexicanhoney
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing % of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread recycling of aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(A) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

(B) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.

(C) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.

(D) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.

(E) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas the aluminum cans required no sorting.

This is find the discrepancy type question.

Although B is a slight contender. it is ruled out because of beverage container blah blah stuff.

Only C fits in by giving the right reason for the decrease in the weight of glass bottles
Director
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Posts: 948
Own Kudos [?]: 239 [0]
Given Kudos: 432
Location: United States
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea [#permalink]
Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

- Largely because of the widespread recycling of aluminum and glass, beverage containers accounted for decreasing % of total weight of garbage
- Aluminum recycling more widely practiced than glass recycling but weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater %.

If aluminum recycling was more widely practiced than glass recycling, one would expect that the weight of aluminum in household garbage declined by a greater %. Instead, we’re told the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater %. We need to find an answer choice that explains this finding.

A. Good to know. It’s completely irrelevant to the argument, though. This is the trap answer. You might think that since glass bottles are heavier than aluminum cans, this would explain why the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater %. But we’re comparing the percentage change of glass bottles (weight of glass bottles in household garbage in 1978 to the weight of glass bottles in household garbage in 1979)

B. Irrelevant distinction. We know they’re glass bottles – whether they contain beverages or something else is not important.

C. If manufacturers replaced many glass bottles with plastic containers, this would explain why aluminum recycling was more widespread and why glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater %.

D. So the weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than total weight of aluminum cans. This is not important – we’re concerned with explaining why the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than weight of the aluminum cans.

E. Irrelevant.