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

It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 18:43

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

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

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

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 23
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 06 Oct 2007, 14:06
9
24
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (01:17) correct 41% (01:20) wrong based on 1160 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Originally posted by mexicanhoney on 06 Oct 2007, 13:55.
Last edited by mexicanhoney on 06 Oct 2007, 14:06, edited 1 time in total.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 287
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2007, 11:54
8
2
The answer is C.

The question asks "what catalyst aside from recycling could cause the overall weight of glass garbage to decrease?"

A. The actual weight of glass is irrelevant as it has remained the same through time.

B. Who cares what was in the glass, as the weight is not effective.

C. Bingo! There is less glass being circulated, therefore the aggregate weight of glass will be less.

D. should have the opposite effect.
E. Color sorting, however interesting, is outside of the scope of this question
General Discussion
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 889
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 06 Oct 2007, 14:05
mexicanhoney wrote:
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.


only A explains why the weight of garbage went down greater than aluminum even though more aluminum cans are recycled than glass

B is a close second

Originally posted by beckee529 on 06 Oct 2007, 14:02.
Last edited by beckee529 on 06 Oct 2007, 14:05, edited 1 time in total.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1394
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2007, 14:04
1
mexicanhoney wrote:
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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 189
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2007, 14:37
Choice C explains why the "weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater % than the weight of the aluminum cans".
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2482
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2007, 11:47
1
mexicanhoney wrote:
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?
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2482
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2007, 14:32
defenestrate wrote:
The answer is C.

The question asks "what catalyst aside from recycling could cause the overall weight of glass garbage to decrease?"

A. The actual weight of glass is irrelevant as it has remained the same through time.

B. Who cares what was in the glass, as the weight is not effective.

C. Bingo! There is less glass being circulated, therefore the aggregate weight of glass will be less.

D. should have the opposite effect.
E. Color sorting, however interesting, is outside of the scope of this question


Perfect. Kindof what I was thinkin. A requires us to make another assumption.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2013
Posts: 3
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Mar 2014, 16:42
2
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 342
Location: United States
WE: Corporate Finance (Manufacturing)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Mar 2014, 20:57
4
ankitasriv wrote:
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Jan 2014
Posts: 57
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2014, 09:08
A here is wrong because it oversimplified the situation.easy to rule out with extreme number.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 822
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Premium Member
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2014, 23:11
Hi e-gmat,

Need a detailed explanation on this one.

My analysis:

We have to explain the findings in the light of the evidences given in argument.

78-88: Beverage cont./ Total garbage decreased.
Most of the decrease came in because of AL and Glass(GL).

Also,

(1).Al recycling > Glass recycling.

(2).Even then %age decrease in glass> %age decrease in AL ( In terms of total garbage).

Considering numbers this can happen like below:

Al: 100
GL: 70

After decrease and recycling.

Al:50
GL:30 Now these numbers aligns with the conditions (1) and (2).

Now what we need to explain in this one?

Please suggest !
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 903
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Sep 2014, 09:22
mexicanhoney wrote:
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.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
My Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267.html#p1449379
My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/kinjal-das/

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2014
Posts: 92
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2015, 15:37
Make it simple...
Premisis
Weight of softdrink cans decreased.. Aluminium % are good (not increased or decreased so much) and glass % decreased heavily..

C: Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
Many glass bottles and few Al cans replaced by plastics.. means Glass % decreased and Al % decreased a little.. So total weight decreased...
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 561
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2016, 05:44
(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.....
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you !

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 73
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2016, 06:25
1
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 12
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Finance, International Business
GPA: 3.57
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Aug 2016, 11:33
mexicanhoney wrote:
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
Explanation for answer choices:
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 27 Jan 2016
Posts: 145
Schools: ISB '18
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2017, 19:46
suppose if 10 alminum cans weight equal to 2 glass bottles then even if we remove 8 cans and two bottles the decrease in weight for bottles will be more. And as per me it resolves the paradox.
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1851
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2017, 16:37
the logic behind this question is that if manufacturers has already stopped producing glass bottles, then there will be a sigificant reduction in glass garbage.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Sep 2017
Posts: 13
CAT Tests
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jul 2018, 23:41
@gmatninja,@e-gmat

I strongly feel that option a should be the correct answer.

What I understand from the stem is that aluminium recycling was widely practiced than glass recycling.

This means that suppose

100 pieces of aluminium trash were removed then 60 pieces of glass trash were removed.



This figure agrees with the stimulus



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



The total weight of glass bottles in garbage before recycling was 100kg, after the recycling process it has come down to 50kg.

The %age decline is 50%.



The total weight of aluminium cans in garbage before recycling was 100kg, after the recycling process it has come down to 70kg.

The %age decline is 30%.



These two figures agree with the stimulus too.

Hence from these two figures we can say that 100 pieces of aluminium accounted for 30kg of crash so per piece weight is 30/100 = 0.3kg.

However 60 pieces of glass trash accounted for 50kg decline. Hence per piece weight is 50/60= 0.83kg.



Hence if the glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminium cans of comparable size this phenomenon is very well explained.

Hence I chose option A.

Can someone pl explain?

Posted from my mobile device
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea &nbs [#permalink] 20 Jul 2018, 23:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.