In order to significantly reduce wastage of water by the households

The question is Which of the following, if true, indicates that the council’s plan is ill suited to their environmental hopes?

What if the households are using extra water in something that benefits the environment.
The option B states the same. If majority are maintaining a garden and if taxes are levied, they might no longer maintain their garden, thus reducing the benefits to the environment.

The council's plan's aim to benefit the environment will not take place.

Posted from my mobile device

So we are saying gardens are beneficial to the environment? Hmm, okay. I thought the resources to maintain small gardens in individual homes isn’t really beneficial. I’m still not sure about B tbh.

I find that claiming that maintaining a garden will help the environment is completely idiotic

Hello, Ravi. I enjoyed the quote above, so I thought I would include it for a lark. I took about 2:40 to land on (B), primarily because it incorporates language that is often used in an effort to over-qualify the correct answer, not to mention that I was less comfortable choosing anything else.

(A) effectively buys the plan ten years to see how things turn out. If the goal is to point to some information to show that the council’s plan is ill suited to their [sic] environmental hopes, this should not be a valid consideration.

(B) uses the word substantial to describe the gardens, and gardens require water to thrive. Also, we do not just have some houses that feature such gardens, but a majority of the households, so the plan would affect most households. To be honest, I was unsure how to make sense of the description that gardens inevitably surround the households. (Why would this be inevitable?) But at the very least, we have a compelling reason for why many households may need to use water without tight restrictions on such usage. Finally, do these gardens add to environmental benefits? We cannot say for sure, or at least to what extent they may benefit the environment. With all of these points to consider, I placed this answer choice on hold while I looked at the others.

(C) incorporates vague language in many households. How are we to qualify such information? I also do not know how to interpret have or needs. If many households do indeed have to use water beyond what would be allotted, then the plan would be depriving such households of a basic necessity, never mind the environment. I guess in a roundabout way, if people died off, there would be less waste or harm to the environment, but this sort of thinking goes beyond the scope of the passage.

(D), if anything, would imply that the plan is more suited to success than failure. If the water is diverted to fields, then those plants will grow better. That seems like a win-win proposition in the absence of information on environmentally unfriendly agricultural practices.

(E) introduces a different consideration altogether by way of a comparison, but the question is asking us not to find the most environmentally friendly answer, just to show that the plan discussed in the passage is not likely to add to environmental benefits. If one practice leads to better environmental benefits than another, but they both lead to benefits, then the plan could still be a success.

I probably took a longer time on this one because the question does not follow the tight logic that I would expect to see in an official question. In short, I do think the quote at the top is applicable. We do have to conflate certain information to align with what we want the answer to be, and that should not be the case. I think that (B) is the best, most defensible answer of the lot, but I would take nothing more away from this question than to pay attention to the language used in the answer choices to qualify—or sometimes over-qualify—those answers.

Thank you for thinking to ask me, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

It's convenient to say something is idiotic rather than providing your own explanation .

Anyways, may be I don't understand why planting trees is not beneficial to the environment.(May be I am generalising ) I really don't,so if you could explain, I would like to learn too. So that I can avoid such mistakes

Posted from my mobile device

I am not entirely convinced on D either. Diversion of water to agriculture may not necessarily support argument. That’s again assumption that agricultural practices are good for environment. The argument has restricted the scope of environmental benefits with reduction in usage of water aka water conservation.

To that extent, I still believe that D is a weakened in so far as water diverted for other use would not reduce consumption.

But I agree with Andrew’s point that the logic in this one is not very tight. So I’ll let this slip.

Posted from my mobile device

IMO it comes down to maintaining little gardens vs saving water to be beneficial for the environment...I really hope this is not an official question because it is a trip into the unknown, the only man that can answer this is Elon Musk...

Understanding the argument -
In order to significantly reduce wastage of water by the households, the town council plans to levy charges on the usage of extra water by the households over and above the allotted amount which is calculated on the basis of the individual household’s daily needs of cooking, cleaning and drinking.

Goal - Reduce wastage
Plan - Levy charges on the usage of extra water.

Extra water calculated - how? Based on the household's daily needs of cooking, cleaning, and drinking.

Given that most households belong to the low and middle income group and would be hard put to pay the charges, the council believes that the reduction in the use of water thus achieved will eventually add to environmental benefits.

Updated Goal - Reduce wastage --> Environmental benefits.
Plan - Levy charges on the usage of extra water.

Option Elimination - Weaken the plan.

Prethinking
1. What if there is an additional use of water for another environmental benefit, such as planting gardens, which gets impacts once this plan gets into effect?
2. What if people started some non-environment-friendly measures because of cuts in water supply, measures that are detrimental to the environment?

A. Although the town currently does not face any water shortage, scientists are predicting an imminent water scarcity in another decade or so - Strengthener. They are planning to preserve water.

B. A majority of the households have maintained substantial gardens that inevitably surround their homes - ok.

C. Many of the households have a much higher requirement of water for their daily needs than allotted by the municipal authorities - Many can be at least 2. Say two households have a higher need, but the 98% can still follow - no impact on the plan. But if many are 100%, this is a weaker—ambiguous effect.

D. Reduction in the usage of household water will free the resource for the more pressing usage of irrigating agricultural fields. - Strengthener.

E. Greater environmental benefits can be attained by ensuring that the households do not use excessive fossil fuels for their daily needs - Alternate plan. Out of scope.