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

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.

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

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).

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?

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)

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.

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

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.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.