Jessica: Switching from single-use plastic bottles to reusable water bottles can significantly reduce environmental waste. Many cities, such as San Francisco, have successfully reduced plastic waste by encouraging the use of reusable bottles and installing more public water refill stations. With proper infrastructure, other cities could easily replicate this success. Tom: While using reusable water bottles can help reduce plastic waste, there are challenges to consider. Not everyone has easy access to water refill stations, and some people may find reusable bottles less convenient than disposable ones. The success seen in San Francisco may not be easily replicated in cities with different infrastructure and waste management systems. Based on the views expressed, select for Agree the statement about which Tom and Jessica would most likely agree, and select for Disagree the statement about which Tom and Jessica would most likely disagree. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Bunuel , can you please confirm if my thinking is correct? Statement 1: "Using reusable water bottles can help reduce plastic waste." - Mentioned by both speakers as an effective measure to counter environmental waste Statement 2: Most cities can easily replicate San Francisco’s success with reducing plastic waste. - Both will disagree as: - Sarah mentions : "With proper infrastructure, other cities could easily replicate this success" - Jim mentions : The success seen in San Francisco may not be easily replicated in cities with different infrastructure and waste management systems

Official Solution: • Using reusable water bottles can help reduce plastic waste. Jessica agrees, as she states: “Switching from single-use plastic bottles to reusable water bottles can significantly reduce environmental waste.” Tom also agrees, saying: “While using reusable water bottles can help reduce plastic waste...” Both speakers explicitly acknowledge this point. Despite Tom’s added concerns, the underlying environmental benefit is not disputed. This is a clear point of agreement. • Most cities can easily replicate San Francisco’s success with reducing plastic waste. Jessica agrees, as she says: “With proper infrastructure, other cities could easily replicate this success.” Her phrasing implies that replicability is broadly achievable. Tom disagrees, stating: “The success seen in San Francisco may not be easily replicated in cities with different infrastructure and waste management systems.” He emphasizes variability and challenges in generalizing that success. This is a clear point of disagreement. • Reusable water bottles may not be as convenient as disposable bottles for some people. Tom directly says: “some people may find reusable bottles less convenient than disposable ones.” He clearly agrees with this. Jessica does not mention convenience at all. Her argument focuses entirely on environmental benefit and infrastructure; she never addresses user experience or behavior. Since Jessica neither supports nor contradicts this idea, we cannot confidently say they agree or disagree. There is no clear alignment or contrast between the two positions. The statement does not fit either column. • Public water refill stations are easy to install. Jessica mentions that cities like San Francisco have installed more public water refill stations, but she says nothing about the ease or difficulty of installation. Tom refers to lack of access to refill stations but also does not address how easy or hard they are to install. Neither speaker expresses a clear stance on installation difficulty. There is no evidence to classify this as agreement or disagreement. The statement does not belong in either column. • Using reusable water bottles is the most effective way to reduce environmental waste. Jessica supports reusable bottles but we don’t know whether she thinks they’re the most effective solution — just that they can significantly reduce waste. Tom acknowledges benefits (can help reduce plastic waste) but we also don’t know whether he thinks it’s the most effective way or not. He just raises concerns and never compares it to other methods. Neither speaker commits to this specific claim. The statement introduces a comparative superlative — “most effective” — that neither Jessica nor Tom addresses, so it cannot be clearly classified as agreement or disagreement. Correct answer: Agree "Using reusable water bottles can help reduce plastic waste. " Disagree "Most cities can easily replicate San Francisco’s success with reducing plastic waste."

Jessica: Switching from single-use plastic bottles to reusable water : Two-part Analysis (TPA)

Jessica: Switching from single-use plastic bottles to reusable water

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

Agree	Disagree
		Using reusable water bottles can help reduce plastic waste.
		Most cities can easily replicate San Francisco’s success with reducing plastic waste.
		Reusable water bottles may not be as convenient as disposable bottles for some people.
		Public water refill stations are easy to install.
		Using reusable water bottles is the most effective way to reduce environmental waste.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions