It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 19:46

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 274 [3], given: 15

To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2015, 08:49
3
This post received
KUDOS
29
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:49) correct 38% (02:09) wrong based on 1764 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

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

(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
(C) For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
(D) People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
(E) Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 274 [3], given: 15

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2015
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2015, 08:25
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
What's the matter with with A?
Why is B incorrect?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 3

1 KUDOS received
BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
B
Status: I Declare War!!!
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 258

Kudos [?]: 96 [1], given: 546

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 03-18-2015
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2015, 05:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
Hey!
IMO it should be A.
As we are comparing the effects of costs.
Thanks
Celestial

Kudos if its a correct solution please

Kudos [?]: 96 [1], given: 546

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2014
Posts: 215

Kudos [?]: 129 [3], given: 75

GMAT Date: 08-04-2015
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Sep 2015, 00:43
3
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Great question.

Govt. plans reuse raw materials from broken down home appliances.
Salvage fee could be collected from consumers either
a. at the time the item is first sold. or
b. at the time of disposal.
Argument favors a. over b. which cud lead to longer use of items.

We need to weaken this, i.e. we got to find something that states problems in a.
Choice A does this. If people need to pay more in the name of its proper disposal, they are like to dispose it carelessly.
No others choices actually hit main spot.

Binit.

Kudos [?]: 129 [3], given: 75

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 May 2015
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2015, 08:47
MaxOb12 wrote:
What's the matter with with A?
Why is B incorrect?


B is actually out of scope
as u can see in the question, the topic is about the relationship between "the fee" and "the waste"
talking about the incentive to produce "new" product is irrelevant to the "waste" and has no guarantee that people will dispose the old product or not.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Posts: 114

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 367

Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2015, 20:40
straight A. If person not getting any incentives rather he/she bears loss on that then only he will keep it.
B and C are out of scope
D is talking about sell to other and argument is abt waste
E is out of scope

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 367

5 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 147

Kudos [?]: 54 [5], given: 373

GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V29
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Sep 2015, 04:58
5
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
thanhmaitran wrote:
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

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

A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
B. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
C. For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
D. People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
E. Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.



Hi experts

Please check whether my reasoning is correct?
Govt plans to add salvage cost at time of selling product.
So eg. if an item costs $40 normally, will cost now $50 ( $10 salvage cost added) --> This way, govt can cover salvage cost and handle discarding of items properly --> reduce waste
Author says that Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste --> Means rather selling item at $50, sell it at $40 only.
And when actually item reaches end of its life, fees should be recovered from owner at that time.
Say, owner will have to pay salvage fee $10 to discard the item, he doesnt want any more.
Author concludes that people wont like to pay just to discard the item so they will tend to keep it, rather than discard it.
This way reduce waste more effectively.


We need to weaken colored part right? we need to show author's thinking is flawed.
A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
If people have to pay $10 just to dispose item properly, they will find other way to avoid fees , which will result in improperly disposed items. So purpose will not be served.

Hope I am correct.

Kudos [?]: 54 [5], given: 373

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 148

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 59

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Oct 2015, 02:07
Hello anupamadw,
Option A is the correct answer .Charging a fee at the time of disposal will make people look out for alternative option for disposal .
_________________

Regards,
Manish Khare
"Every thing is fine at the end. If it is not fine ,then it is not the end "

Kudos [?]: 97 [0], given: 59

Math Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1531

Kudos [?]: 959 [0], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Oct 2015, 06:07
In order to reduce waste , Government plans to recycle discarded household appliances .
To recover the cost incurred in recycling , it plans to impose a salvage fee , which could collected from consumers either -
1. At the time when item is first sold
2. Or at the time when item is disposed .

To weaken this consider the case that people will find alternative means to dispose the appliance illegally to avoid the salvage fee.

:roll:
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 959 [0], given: 72

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 230

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2016, 07:41
Albeit it's a difficult question, but the simple way we can workout is to eliminate options.
Argument talks about Govt charging an salvage fees.

B) Manufacturers incentives and all is out of scope.
C) salvage fee would not be paid for number of years is out of scope.
D) People selling the used to other people; then the later has to dispose anyhow right ? so it touches the argument without making any valid point.
E) Argument is about salvage fees, non-functional appliances can be repaired at relative cost or not is irrelevant.

Thus, A is the left out; is the answer.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 230

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 164

Kudos [?]: 37 [3], given: 72

Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Leadership
GPA: 3.97
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2016, 16:35
3
This post received
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

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

A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
B. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
C. For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
D. People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
E. Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.

*********************************************

We need to note that in this argument two proposals are presented - First, by the government, and second the author suggestions. For such argument - ensure that the question imposed will be for the author's suggestion. Thus, we need to weaken the authors reasoning that fee at the time of salvage is a good idea. 'A' satisfies it, hands down.
A. cost of disposing at the time of salvage would result in people disposing off items illegally.
B. The fee is imposed at time of salvage or at the time of sale - thus this case is applicable irrespective of the when the fee is imposed.
C. That does not affect the argument or weaken it - in any way as far as disposing is concerned.
D. that is a true statement and does not affect the argument or weaken it - in any way as far as disposing is concerned.
E. If appliances could be repaired, it is strengthening the argument, because people would like to repair their appliances then pay a disposal fee (thus reduce waste and strengthen the argument).

Thanks
_________________

KUDOS!!!, I need them too :)

Kudos [?]: 37 [3], given: 72

Expert Post
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 608

Kudos [?]: 521 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2016, 20:21
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
thanhmaitran wrote:
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

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

A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it .
B. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
C. For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
D. People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
E. Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.

The right choice should say something negative about imposing fee at the time of disposing or say negative about keeping the appliances longer because these represent the conclusion and premise resp.

Choice A does say negative about increasing the cost of disposing as it says that it provides an incentive to dispose improperly. B says something about durability i.e., consumers keeping the appliances longer but it is neither negative nor positive. Choices D and E say only something positive about keeping appliances longer and can be ruled out. Choice C talks negative about the government plan because people may not have the incentive to keep the appliances longer.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com/regularcourse.php

Pay After Use
Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 521 [0], given: 16

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 111

Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GPA: 3.9
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2017, 02:20
Great Question, but pretty simple if we have our consciousness on the Question. Thanks for those who provided explanations.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 111

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 479

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 18

Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2017, 09:36
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

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

A. Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
B. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
C. For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
D. People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
E. Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.

Easy Question,

PreThnking:in weakener questions one needs to weaken the link between the premise and the conclusion,which is that people will keep old appliances longer because of the fee.but will all the people keep the appliance even when appliance get old or they dont need it or is consuming more resources thus becoming expensive to use...they may sell it or they may get rid of it without informing the concerned body, they may dump it,which will defeat the purpose of the planning altogether or they may sell it second hand,which is actually supporting the argument therefoer we go with the illeagal dumping or disposing to weaken.

Option A is the correct match for perthinking and is the correct answer.

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 18

1 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1183

Kudos [?]: 1193 [1], given: 417

Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Aug 2017, 06:08
1
This post received
KUDOS
thanhmaitran wrote:
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

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

(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
(C) For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
(D) People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
(E) Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.


Conclusion : Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively
To weaken : Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would NOT reduce waste more effectively

(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.

(A) is exactly what we looking for.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Kudos [?]: 1193 [1], given: 417

VP
VP
User avatar
G
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1073

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 535

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2017, 22:55
thanhmaitran wrote:
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

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

(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.
(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
(C) For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
(D) People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
(E) Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.


The answer is A
The reasoning behind this that if fee is imposed for discarding household appliance then people will become furious and will not discard the appliances properly.
Why would anyone want to pay for the discarded product , hence A is just the reasoning to weaken the argument .


B is out of scope , even if the appliances are more durable they would be discarded after some time .
C is irrelevant
D But they the appliances are not discarded if they are sold .
E It is irrelevant
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 535

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 Jun 2017
Posts: 25

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 62

Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2017, 08:17
This is a great question.

Argument - If an extra fees is imposed on the people they would tend to keep the old appliances longer and hence the waste generated would be less.

What would weaken - an option which says that If people have to face the extra fees to discard the waste they would resort to wrong/improper means of discarding the waste (but they would anyhow discard it). Consequently the waste generated would be the same or even more.

Only option A satisfies this.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 62

Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid   [#permalink] 08 Aug 2017, 08:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by

To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.