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

 It is currently 17 Jul 2018, 02:56

### 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

# QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5131
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 May 2017, 20:11
3
20
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

31% (01:43) correct 69% (02:25) wrong based on 677 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 22: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of domestic garbage in Brazil. The increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and plastic was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than plastic recycling, the total weight of plastic bottles in Brazil’s domestic garbage declined by a greater percentage during this time than the total weight of aluminum cans in Brazil’s domestic garbage.

Which of the following, if true in Brazil from 2000 to 2010, most helps to account for the apparent discrepancy?

(A) Consumers increasingly favored glass beverage containers over plastic ones.

(B) Plastic bottles were significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

(C) Most recycled aluminum cans were beverage containers, but a significant fraction of recycled plastic bottles were not beverage containers.

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

(E) In Brazil, the total number of plastic bottles recycled between 2000 and 2010 was less than the total number of aluminum cans recycled during that time.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1824
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 May 2017, 20:12
7
8
First, let's identify the "apparent discrepancy" in the question.

We know that from 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of domestic garbage in Brazil, thanks primarily to "the increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and plastic." We also know that aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than plastic recycling. So it would seem that the weight of aluminum in domestic garbage would decline faster.

But here's the discrepancy: the opposite seems to be true. "...the total weight of plastic bottles in Brazil’s domestic garbage declined by a greater percentage during this time than the total weight of aluminum cans in Brazil’s domestic garbage."

So we need to find something that will help us explain why the total weight of plastic bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans -- despite the fact that aluminum recycling was more widespread during this period.

Quote:
(A) Consumers increasingly favored glass beverage containers over plastic ones.

At first glance, this might seem to be out of scope, since the passage doesn't mention glass at all. But (A) is basically telling us that recycling might not be the only factor reducing the amount of aluminum in Brazil's garbage. If consumers increasingly favored glass beverage containers over plastic ones, that would reduce the number of plastic beverage bottles used by Brazilians and thus reduce the weight of plastic in Brazil's garbage.

In other words, plastic recycling may not have significantly reduced the weight of plastic in Brazil's garbage, but the change in Brazilians' preferences may have significantly reduced the weight of plastic in Brazil's garbage. This potentially explains why the percent decrease in weight was higher for plastic bottles than for aluminum cans, so let's hang on to choice (A).

Quote:
(B) Plastic bottles were significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

Absolutely everything in the questions deals with percentages, so the relative weight of different containers is irrelevant. Choice (B) does not explain the apparent discrepancy.

Quote:
(C) Most recycled aluminum cans were beverage containers, but a significant fraction of recycled plastic bottles were not beverage containers.

This statement gives us another reason to expect the percent decrease in the weight of aluminum cans to be GREATER than the percent decrease in the weight of plastic bottles. If the opposite information were given (i.e. that a significant fraction of aluminum cans were not beverage containers and most recycled plastic bottles were beverage containers), that might help explain the discrepancy. The statement given in choice (C) only makes the discrepancy more glaring.

Quote:
(D) The total weight of plastic bottles purchased by Brazilians increased at a slightly faster rate than did the total weight of aluminum cans purchased by Brazilians.

This statement also makes the discrepancy more glaring. If plastic recycling is less widespread AND Brazilians are using more plastic bottles, we would certainly expect the weight of aluminum cans to decrease by a larger percentage. If we were told that the total weight of aluminum cans purchased by Brazilians increased at a significantly faster rate than did the total weight of plastic bottles, that might explain the discrepancy; however, the statement given in choice (D) does not explain the discrepancy.

Quote:
(E) In Brazil, the total number of plastic bottles recycled between 2000 and 2010 was less than the total number of aluminum cans recycled during that time.

We don't care about the number of bottles or cans, only about the total weight as a percentage of the total domestic garbage. Statement (E) does not help.

Choice (A) is the best answer.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 06 Dec 2016
Posts: 14
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 30 May 2017, 23:04
I think the answer E is proper.

Beverage containers include alumninum cans (Al) and plastic bottles (P). From the first sentence we can conclude that

(wAl + wP)/wGarbage decrease
Or (wAl/wGarbage + wP/wGarbage) decrease, where w is weight.

The 2 last sentences are premises. We can analyze that

#Al recycling > #P recycling (1), where # is the number of,

And

wP/wGarbage decrease and wP/wGarbage > wAl/wGarbage (2)

From (1) and (2), we can conclude that if the conclusion is true, there are 2 circumstances (unstated assumption) that might happen.

1st, wP > wAl
2nd, #P recycling < #Al recycling

(A) Irrelevant. How about alumninum containers?

(B) It doesnt mention recycling containers, instead general containers.

(C) Irrelevant. It should be the NUMBER of recycled plastic bottles, instead of a FRACTION of those bottles.

(D) Irrelevant. It should be RECYCLING, instead of PURCHASED.

(E) CORRECT. It supports the unstated assumption.

That's what I think.

Sent from my SM-J700H using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Originally posted by ng.phg.mai on 30 May 2017, 22:09.
Last edited by ng.phg.mai on 30 May 2017, 23:04, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 54
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.7
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 31 May 2017, 12:06
3
IMO A.

A. CORRECT. If plastic bottles are ditched in favor of some other material then less tonnage of plastic garbage will be available.
B. INCORRECT. If this is true then it should have been true in past also and hence doesn't explain why there is a sudden drop in plastic garbage.
C. IRRELEVANT. We are concerned with beverage cans.
D. INCORRECT. Same argument as B plus people buying more plastic doesn't automatically prove that they are recycling more.
E. INCORRECT. % increase in no of plastic < % increase in no of Al doesn't prove that % change weight of P < % change in weight of Al recycled.

Originally posted by deep14 on 30 May 2017, 22:53.
Last edited by deep14 on 31 May 2017, 12:06, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 02 May 2017
Posts: 2
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 May 2017, 23:29
A) correct. If consumers start favouring glass containers over plastic ones while the usage of aluminium cans doesn't vary, the proportion of plastic ones in the whole lot will decrease in comparison to aluminium ones.

B) incorrect. 180 degree answer. Heavier plastic bottles will ultimately increase the weight, not happening in the argument.
Anyway this seems a vague statement.

C)Incorrect. The argument is restricted to the beverage containers. No mention of non beverage containers.

D) Incorrect. Again 180 degree answer. Same reason as option B

E)Incorrect. This option is destroying the fact. It's clearly given in the argument that aluminium recycling was more widely practiced.

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2076
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2017, 01:11
From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of domestic garbage in Brazil. The increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and plastic was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than plastic recycling, the total weight of plastic bottles in Brazil’s domestic garbage declined by a greater percentage during this time than the total weight of aluminum cans in Brazil’s domestic garbage.

Boil it down - Percentage of aluminum recycling was higher than that of plastic recycling .However , the actual change of plastic in trash was higher than that of aluminium in trash .

(A) Consumers increasingly favored glass beverage containers over plastic ones. - Correct

(B) Plastic bottles were significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size. - Irrelevant

(C) Most recycled aluminum cans were beverage containers, but a significant fraction of recycled plastic bottles were not beverage containers. - Irrelevant

(D) The total weight of plastic bottles purchased by Brazilians increased at a slightly faster rate than did the total weight of aluminum cans purchased by Brazilians. - Incorrect

(E) In Brazil, the total number of plastic bottles recycled between 2000 and 2010 was less than the total number of aluminum cans recycled during that time. - Incorrect

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 518
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2017, 07:24
Phew this one was a tough one .. My take on this one :

Premise :

1) % of beverage containers in domestic waste has been decreasing over a period from 2000 to 2010. Recycling was responsible for this trend.
2) Aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than plastic recycling,

Conclusion :

The total weight of plastic bottles in Brazil’s domestic garbage declined by a greater percentage during this time than the total weight of aluminum cans in Brazil’s domestic garbage.

Pre-think : We need to find out why the total weight of plastic bottles in garbage declined by a greater % than the decline in total weight of aluminum cans in spite of greater recycling of aluminum cans. Please note that the conclusion compares % decline with decline in total weight. The total decline in weight of aluminum cans has to be more than the total decline in weight of plastic bottles. But if the % of decline in plastic is more , the decline could be because the sample space of plastic cans is smaller and the qty hence recycled is a greater % of this smaller qty.

POE :

a) This options conveys that the sample space of plastic is small because of a higher qty of glass bottles - hold
b) Are we concerned about the weight of plastic vs aluminum cans ? - out
c) We are not concerned about the fraction of beverage cans among plastic or glass bottles - out
d) How does the frequency of purchase matter ? Moreover we still cannot deduce that the sample space of plastic is smaller - out
e) Are we concerned with the number or weight ? - Out

Only option A seems feasible.
_________________

" The few , the fearless "

Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2015
Posts: 15
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2017, 09:35
A. Plastic bottles are being replaced with glass bottles.

Sent from my XT1585 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
_________________

NOW OR NEVER

Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2017
Posts: 38
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 720 Q48 V41
GPA: 3.5
Re: QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2017, 11:56
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 22: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of domestic garbage in Brazil. The increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and plastic was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than plastic recycling, the total weight of plastic bottles in Brazil’s domestic garbage declined by a greater percentage during this time than the total weight of aluminum cans in Brazil’s domestic garbage.

Which of the following, if true in Brazil from 2000 to 2010, most helps to account for the apparent discrepancy?

(A) Consumers increasingly favored glass beverage containers over plastic ones.

(B) Plastic bottles were significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.

(C) Most recycled aluminum cans were beverage containers, but a significant fraction of recycled plastic bottles were not beverage containers.

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

(E) In Brazil, the total number of plastic bottles recycled between 2000 and 2010 was less than the total number of aluminum cans recycled during that time.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

A is correct IMO.

"the total weight of plastic bottles in Brazil’s domestic garbage declined by a greater percentage during this time than the total weight of aluminum cans in Brazil’s domestic garbage" - this indicates that there was a greater decline in the weight of plastic bottle garbage than in the weight of aluminum garbage. This could possibly have been if people were using less plastic bottles (and hence there were fewer plastic bottles to recycle).

(A) Consumers increasingly favored glass beverage containers over plastic ones. -> this would mean people are using less plastic and there's less plastic garbage. Correct.

(B) Plastic bottles were significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size. -> irrelevant, we are talking about percentage change of weight

(C) Most recycled aluminum cans were beverage containers, but a significant fraction of recycled plastic bottles were not beverage containers. - irrelevant

(D) The total weight of plastic bottles purchased by Brazilians increased at a slightly faster rate than did the total weight of aluminum cans purchased by Brazilians. - this would have the opposite effect if anything. Doesn't explain the discrepancy at all.

(E) In Brazil, the total number of plastic bottles recycled between 2000 and 2010 was less than the total number of aluminum cans recycled during that time. - I feel this can be a inferred from the argument, but it certainly doesn't explain the discrepancy.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1875
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2017, 22:08
D and E are basically same.
A explains why the practice of recycling aluminum did not reduce a greater percentage of aluminum garbage. Also, this is a common pattern in gmat, and this patter has nothing to do with percentage and number.
QOTD: From 2000 to 2010, beverage containers accounted for a steadily   [#permalink] 08 Nov 2017, 22:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.