The town of Greenfield recently instituted a substantial supplementary

Question

The town of Greenfield recently instituted a substantial supplementary tax on all households, whereby each household is taxed in proportion to the volume of the trash that it puts out for trash collectors to pick up, as measured by the number of standard-sized garbage bags put out. In order to reduce the volume of the trash on which their tax bill is based, Greenfield households can deliver their recyclable trash to a conveniently located local commercial recycling center, where such trash is accepted free of charge.

The supplementary tax provides some financial incentive to Greenfield households to do each of the following EXCEPT

(A) sort out recyclable trash thoroughly from their other trash

(B) dump nonrecyclable trash illegally at parks and roadsides

(C) compress and nest items of nonrecyclable trash before putting them out for pickup

(D) deliver recyclable materials to the recycling center instead of passing them on to neighbors who want to reuse them

(E) buy products without packaging or with recyclable rather than nonrecyclable packaging

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  garbage tax based on volume of trash put out;
  tax-free to dispose of recyclable's at a center.

FIND FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
(A) yes, sorting out recyclables provides some $ incentive, because this could reduce their volume;
(B) yes, this would reduce their volume free of charge;
(C) yes, more trash would fit into each bag;
(E) yes, more recyclables that can be disposed tax-free.

Ans (D)  delivering to the center or passing trash to someone else is the same thing, both reduce your volume tax-free.

unraveled · Answer

The town of Greenfield recently instituted a substantial supplementary tax on all households, whereby each household is taxed in proportion to the volume of the trash that it puts out for trash collectors to pick up, as measured by the number of standard-sized garbage bags put out. In order to reduce the volume of the trash on which their tax bill is based, Greenfield households can deliver their recyclable trash to a conveniently located local commercial recycling center, where such trash is accepted free of charge.

The supplementary tax provides some financial incentive to Greenfield households to do each of the following EXCEPT

This is a great question with a subtle catch. Actions of households are rewarded in the form of financial incentives in indirect form. The lesser the volume of the trash a household has the lesser the tax it gives. Also, recyclable trash is exempted(at least as can be inferred) from supplementary tax since it is accepted free of charge whatever be the volume.

(A) sort out recyclable trash thoroughly from their other trash - WRONG. The act is incentivized indirectly since the volume is lessened after recyclable trash is separated.

(B) dump nonrecyclable trash illegally at parks and roadsides - CORRECT. Its clear straight forward that this act does not lead to incentives rather to fines, may be, since it is not mentioned in the argument. The option takes things in opposite direction if not to incentives.

(C) compress and nest items of nonrecyclable trash before putting them out for pickup - WRONG. Compressing reduced the volume of trash thus incentives.

(D) deliver recyclable materials to the recycling center instead of passing them on to neighbors who want to reuse them - WRONG. This is closest to the correct answer. The act of passing on the recyclable materials to neighbors is not mentioned in the argument but households do so then they are not incentivized anyway but delivering recyclable materials to recycling centers would not cause anything to them.

(E) buy products without packaging or with recyclable rather than nonrecyclable packaging - WRONG. With standard packaging would cost since the ackaging would increase the volume thus increasing the tax. A recyclable packaging would not increasing the volume on the other hand.

IMO Answer B.

Munah · Answer

(B) dump nonrecyclable trash illegally at parks and roadsides

Posted from my mobile device

freedom128 · Answer

(A) is incorrect. Because the tax is based on volume of trash set out for collection and because recyclable trash can be disposed of free of charge, there is a financial incentive to do this.

(B) is incorrect. Because the tax is based on the volume of trash that is set out, there is a financial incentive to minimize this amount of trash. One way to do this is to dump illegally.

(C) is wrong because it would reduce the volume of the trash, thereby reducing the volume. The reduced volume would reduce the supplemental tax. There is a financial incentive to do it.

(D) is the CORRECT ANSWER choice. Tax is based on volume of trash set out for collection, so if any items are sent to the recycling center or given to neighbors, the tax would be no different for the household. There is a financial incentive to recycle items that would have been set out for collection, but there is no financial incentive to recycle items that would be given to neighbors to reuse.

(E) is wrong because there is a financial incentive to reduce the volume of trash set out for collection. This answer involves buying products with no packaging or with recyclable packaging. These types of products would eliminate the volume of trash set out for collection, either because there is no packaging or because the packaging could be taken to the recycling center.

FINAL ANSWER IS (D)

MistyNova · Answer

this doesn't make sense. How is B correct even though there is no absolute mention, whereas recycling does infact give incentive.

guddo · Answer

We already knew from thorough investigation that immediately prior to the accident, either the driver of the first vehicle changed lanes without signaling or the driver of the second vehicle was driving with excessive speed. Either of these actions would make a driver liable for the resulting accident. But further evidence has proved that the first vehicle’s turn signal was not on, though the driver of that vehicle admits to having changed lanes. So the driver of the second vehicle is not liable for the accident.
 
 Which one of the following would be most important to know in evaluating the conclusion drawn above?

The argument tries to show that the first driver was liable, and therefore the second driver was not liable.  The key weak point  is that the claim that the first driver changed lanes depends on that driver’s own admission. So we need to know whether that admission is  reliable .

(A) whether the second vehicle was being driven at excessive speed

This is tempting, but it is not the intended key issue. The argument is trying to establish the first alternative: that the first driver changed lanes without signaling. If that first alternative is properly established, the argument treats the second alternative as ruled out.

(B) whether the driver of the first vehicle knew that the turn signal was not on

This is not important. The passage says changing lanes without signaling would make the driver liable. It does not say liability depends on whether the driver knew the signal was off.

(C) whether any other vehicles were involved in the accident

This is not central. The argument is specifically about whether the second driver is liable, given the two possible actions identified by the investigation.

(D) whether the driver of the first vehicle was a reliable witness

This is correct. The evidence proves that the turn signal was not on, but the claim that the first driver changed lanes comes from the first driver’s admission. If that driver is unreliable, then we may not know that the first driver actually changed lanes. In that case, the conclusion that the second driver is not liable is not secure.

(E) whether the driver of the second vehicle would have seen the turn signal flashing had it been on

This is not important. The issue is whether the first driver changed lanes without signaling, not whether the second driver would have noticed a signal.

Answer: (D)

egmat · Answer

Hi MistyNova,

I can see exactly where this is snagging, and it comes down to what "financial incentive" means in this argument. The tax is based on  one thing only : the number of standard-sized garbage bags a household puts out for pickup. So a behavior is incentivized if it  lowers that count  - nothing else matters, not whether it's ethical, and not whether the stimulus "mentions" it.

On B (illegal dumping):  you're judging it by whether it's stated as an incentive, and by the fact that it's clearly wrong to do. But the tax doesn't care about legality - it only measures the bags you set out. If you dump nonrecyclable trash "at parks and roadsides," that trash  never  enters your pickup pile, so your bag count drops and your bill drops. That's a real financial incentive, however unethical. So B  does  provide incentive - not the EXCEPT answer.

On D - the real trap:  notice D is a  comparison , not a single action. It says deliver recyclables to the center  "instead of passing them on to neighbors who want to reuse them."  Ask yourself: what happens to your bag count in each case?

- Take them to the center - those items leave your trash - bags down.
- Hand them to neighbors - those items  also  leave your trash - bags down.

Both routes remove the exact same material from your pickup pile, so your tax bill is  identical  either way. The tax gives you  no financial reason to prefer the center over the neighbors  - and that's precisely why D is the EXCEPT answer.

So the key shift: don't ask "is this mentioned/allowed?" Ask "does it change the number of bags I put out?" B changes it; D's  two  options change it equally, so D adds nothing.

Quick check to lock it in:  if D instead said "deliver recyclables to the center  instead of throwing them in your regular pickup trash " - would the tax now reward you? Yes, because only  one  of those  two  options reduces your bags. The trick in the real D is that  both  sides already reduce your bags the same amount.

Answer: D

The town of Greenfield recently instituted a substantial supplementary

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The town of Greenfield recently instituted a substantial supplementary

Prep Toolkit

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