To keep depleted batteries from polluting the environment,

Question

To keep depleted batteries from polluting the environment, the government of Ulm is discussing a mandate that would require residents to dispose of them through a special pickup service. To offset the costs of maintaining such a service, Ulm expects to charge a fee, which would be collected when batteries are discarded. Collecting the fee at the time of sale would be more effective, however, because residents are more likely to make use of a service if they see themselves as already having paid for it.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. If they were not anticipating the disposal cost after purchasing the batteries, residents would use more batteries, increasing the total amount of pollution. 
B. The service leaves battery makers with no incentive to develop long-lasting products. 
C. Residents who purchased batteries before the measure went into effect will not have had to pay the fee. 
D. Residents who recharge their own batteries will not have to use the service. 
E. Many depleted batteries could be recharged at substantially reduced cost.

source - ready4gmat

SonalSinha803 · Answer

I am not sure....but I don't find a better answer than option A.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

US09 · Answer

IMO A.

The idea behind the proposal was to decrease the pollution due to depleted batteries. But if the residents do not anticipate the costs of disposal, they may be less inclined to limit their use of batteries thereby increasing the pollution as a result. Hence, this may hurt the proposal instead.

zamiraolortegui · Answer

Conclusion: collecting the fee at the time of sale would be more effective, however, because residents are more likely to make use of a service if they see themselves as already having paid for it.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. If they were not anticipating the disposal cost after purchasing the batteries, residents would use more batteries, increasing the total amount of pollution  - If they use more batteries, does it mean that they're not going to use the pickup service? They could use more batteries and still use the pickup service.  
B. The service leaves battery makers with no incentive to develop long-lasting products  - out of scope 
C. Residents who purchased batteries before the measure went into effect will not have had to pay the fee  - This one seems correct to me. As they already have the batteries AND will not have to pay the fee, it weakens the conclusion that collecting the fee at the time of sale would be more effective 
D. Residents who recharge their own batteries will not have to use the service  - no need to dispose batteries, no need to pay for the fee... 
E. Many depleted batteries could be recharged at substantially reduced cost  - same.. doesn't matter

Can someone correct me if I am wrong?

Thank you

shashankism · Answer

The options are not very clear due to complex question stem.. I think GMAT questions have very clear answers.. Probably this is not a GMAT level question...
How's A correct.. If the disposal cost is added during the purchase , the overall cost of the battery will increase and hence people will purchase less and not more .. So, it doesn't weaken the argument.
Even B option seems correct.. In fact due to increased cost, people will start purchasing less batteries so sellers will have less incentive to produce long lasting batteries and they will start producing short lasting batteries which will lead to frequent purchase and hence more pollution.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Bunuel can you please explain how A is correct and what is the main conclusion here?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

I think it was E because if person will recharge the batteries then how the collection fee was effective

gabrielta · Answer

E is out of scope. Because the CORE here is whether they should charge customers when the batteries are discarded or in advance so that the customers don't have to think about it after that.
E is making a point, but it is irrelevant because that doesn't affect the CORE here.
A is undermining the point of charging customers in advance because if that, customers will be unaware of the disposal cost and they will use more and more batteries, leading to the increase in the total amount of pollution (the aim service company's action at the beginning).

egmat · Answer

Looking at your question about the main conclusion and why A is correct, let me break this down systematically.

Identifying the Main Conclusion 
The main conclusion is:  "Collecting the fee at the time of sale would be more effective"  (than collecting it at disposal time).

Here's how to spot it:
 
 Look for opinion words like "would be more effective" - these signal conclusions  
 The word "however" at the end introduces the author's position  
 
 Everything before this is context/background about the current plan

The author's reasoning: People are more likely to use the disposal service if they feel they've already paid for it (at purchase time).

Why Answer Choice A Weakens the Argument 
Choice A states:  "If they were not anticipating the disposal cost after purchasing the batteries, residents would use more batteries, increasing the total amount of pollution." 
 Here's the critical insight:  When people pay upfront at purchase, they don't think about disposal costs anymore → they use MORE batteries → MORE pollution results.

This creates a  devastating paradox :
 
 The  goal : Reduce battery pollution through proper disposal 
 The  proposed method : Charge fees upfront to ensure service usage 
 The  unintended consequence (from A) : Upfront fees actually INCREASE pollution by encouraging more battery consumption  
 
Why This Weakens 
The argument claims upfront payment is "more effective." But effective at what? The ultimate goal is  environmental protection . Choice A shows that upfront payment could actually make pollution  worse  - completely undermining the program's purpose.
Think of it this way: What good is it if everyone uses the disposal service (because they paid upfront) but there are now  twice as many batteries  to dispose of?

Strategic Tip for Similar Questions 
When evaluating "weaken" answers in CR:

Always connect back to the  ultimate goal  (here: reducing pollution) 
 Look for  unintended consequences  that defeat the purpose  
 
 The best weakeners often show the plan  backfiring  rather than just being ineffective

Key Takeaway:

Choice A doesn't just say the plan won't work well - it shows the plan could make things  worse , which is the strongest type of weakener in GMAT CR.

egmat · Answer

Looking at your doubt, I can see why this question feels challenging - it requires understanding subtle consumer psychology rather than pure logic. Let me clarify why  Answer A  is correct and address your specific concerns.

Understanding the Argument:  The author argues that collecting the disposal fee  at the time of purchase  (rather than at disposal) would be more effective because people are more likely to use a service they've already paid for.

Why Your Analysis of Option A is Backwards: 
You're thinking: Higher purchase price → Fewer batteries purchased But the passage tells us the opposite happens due to "sunk cost" psychology.

When the disposal fee is collected  at purchase :
 
 The disposal cost becomes "invisible" - it's bundled into the purchase price 
 Once paid, consumers don't think about disposal costs anymore 
 They perceive disposal as "free" (already paid for) 
 Result: They use  MORE  batteries, not fewer

Think of it like a buffet vs. à la carte dining:
 
 Buffet (pay upfront): You eat more because you've already paid 
 À la carte (pay per dish): You're conscious of cost with each choice

This psychological principle means people would use  more  batteries when disposal fees are pre-paid, increasing pollution - which  weakens  the argument that this method is "more effective" for environmental protection.
 
Why Option B is Incorrect: 
You're creating a complex chain: Higher cost → Fewer purchases → Manufacturers make worse batteries → More pollution
This multi-step reasoning goes beyond what GMAT requires. Option B doesn't directly address whether collecting fees  at sale vs. at disposal  is more effective. The manufacturer incentive issue exists regardless of when fees are collected.
 
Key GMAT Strategy: 
For Weaken questions:

Focus on the  specific  argument being made 
 The correct answer  directly  attacks the logic 
 Consider behavioral/psychological factors, not just economics  Avoid overthinking with complex causal chains

This  IS  a legitimate GMAT question - it tests whether you can recognize when a well-intentioned policy might backfire due to human psychology. The GMAT frequently tests such unintended consequences in Critical Reasoning.

To keep depleted batteries from polluting the environment,

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

To keep depleted batteries from polluting the environment,

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