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

 It is currently 15 Jun 2019, 22:46

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 26
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Aug 2015, 08:49
5
96
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

66% (02:12) correct 34% (02:38) wrong based on 2891 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

GMAT® Official Guide 2016

Practice Question
Question No.: CR 77
Page: 525

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.

Plastic Sleds

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word weakens indicates that this is a Weaken the Argument question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Plan: req salvage à reduce waste

Govt: Salvage fee at purch

BUT: Dispose fee à keep longer à Ó reduce waste more

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Weaken questions, the correct answer should make the conclusion less likely to be valid. The conclusion in this argument is that a disposal fee would do more to reduce waste than would a purchase fee. What other issues could there be with a disposal fee that might make it less effective?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. The goal of the plan is to reduce waste. If charging a fee at disposal results in illegal disposal, the appliances that are illegally thrown away will not in fact be salvaged, In other words, the program will not achieve its goal to reduce waste; instead, the program itself will encourage the opposite of the desired behavior.

(B) Neither of the plans in the argument (fee at purchase or fee at disposal) would influence manufacturers to produce durable appliances. This information is not important in determining whether a disposal fee will be more effective than a purchase fee.

(C) This fact would influence the timing of payments and provides a reason some people might prefer a disposal fee. It does not affect the extent to which a disposal fee might better reduce waste.

(D) This information strengthens the argument. People would have an incentive (avoiding the fee) to sell used appliances rather than dispose of them, providing another reason a disposal fee would be better.

(E) This answer provides an alternative plan to reduce waste: repair old appliances. The argument, however, is that a fee at disposal would be more effective than a fee at purchase. This answer does not impact that argument.
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 127
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V29
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Sep 2015, 04:58
17
2
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.
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 01 Sep 2015
Posts: 2
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Sep 2015, 08:25
3
What's the matter with with A?
Why is B incorrect?
Retired Moderator
Status: I Declare War!!!
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 234
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 03-18-2015
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

Kudos if its a correct solution please
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2014
Posts: 185
GMAT Date: 08-04-2015
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Sep 2015, 00:43
5
2
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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2301
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

05 Oct 2015, 06:07
1
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.

_________________
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
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 124
Location: United States
GPA: 3.97
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Feb 2016, 16:35
10
4
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
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 630
Location: India
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Mar 2016, 20:21
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 Test Prep
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach
Director
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 560
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1332
Location: Malaysia
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Aug 2017, 06:08
1
1
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."

VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1007
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Aug 2017, 22:55
1
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 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
_________________
Manager
Joined: 29 Feb 2016
Posts: 116
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 3
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Oct 2017, 21:28
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.

Can some please explain why option C is wrong ?? egmat
For people who bought new appliances recently, the fee need not be paid for number of years. There is possibility for those people who bought new appliances recently will dispose them without any fee.

I understand that we are only concerned about reducing the waste but not trying to eliminate the waste of raw materials.
_________________
Find what you love and let it kill you. — Charles Bukowski
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 190
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Oct 2017, 21:54
1
sumanainampudi wrote:
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.

Can some please explain why option C is wrong ?? egmat
For people who bought new appliances recently, the fee need not be paid for number of years. There is possibility for those people who bought new appliances recently will dispose them without any fee.

I understand that we are only concerned about reducing the waste but not trying to eliminate the waste of raw materials.

Hi,
Though I am not an expert, but let me share my thoughts. There are 2 problems with option C-
1>Option C talks about people who have bought new appliances recently. So, we don't know the percentage of such consumers. In other words, this can be a small subset of people we are dealing with.
2> The argument talks about- It's better to charge a fee at the time of disposal/salvage than when an appliance is first sold. So, for how many years the fee is not collected does not affect the argument.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1530
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Dec 2017, 15:05
there are 2 plans in the argument. The first is to impose fees at the time when the appliances are first sold; the second is to impose fees when appliances are discarded. The conclusion favors the latter.
B & E strengthen the argument. C does not help and seems out of scope.
D is out of scope and maybe strengthens the argument because D concerns with selling used appliances while the argument talks about discarding appliances.
Manager
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 90
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 620 Q41 V34
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Sep 2018, 06:23
yut6422 wrote:
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.

I agree with this..
Quote:
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.
Conclusion: Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively.
Support: Consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

Quote:
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
To weaken this argument we need to show that the "Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively." isn't the wisest thing to do.

(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose it improperly.If Govt. charges the salvage cost at the time of salvage, people would try to find alternative methods/ would try to evade paying the salvage cost. Hence chances of not getting the appliances disposed off properly increase, hence increasing the chances of reducing the waste.
Option A weakens the argument effectively.

Quote:
(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.

In addition to the reason mentioned above, even If the durable product is made, it would also go to salvage one day. The same conditions shall apply on it then. This option is out of scope to mention the "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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2014
Posts: 269
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
Schools: Tuck '19
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 Oct 2018, 05:57
MaxOb12 wrote:
What's the matter with with A?
Why is B incorrect?

There is nothing wrong with A.Its the correct answer.

If people start reducing waste improperly,it will thwart govt attempt of reducing wastes.
You can relate it to everyday life,if someone imposes tariff household waste - a lot of people would reduce it illegally and this means it wont be salvaged properly as planned by govt.

Now regarding option B:

The goal of the plan is to reduce waste. If charging a fee at disposal results in illegal disposal, the appliances
that are illegally thrown away will not in fact be salvaged, In other words, the program will not achieve its goal
to reduce waste; instead, the program itself will encourage the opposite of the desired behavior
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2018
Posts: 69
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Nov 2018, 05:21
I think the trick here is to identify the conclusion... I could not find which one the conclusion was and which were the premises... Can someone tell me how do I find the conclusion here...
Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2016
Posts: 10
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Apr 2019, 20:52
The conclusion here is that imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively.

Answer choices B C and E are all out of scope to weaken the conclusion.

I was stuck with A and D for a while, but D does not weaken the conclusion as the last person who bought the appliance would still need to pay the fee....which effectively reduces the waste.....

CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 2748
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Apr 2019, 21:53
patrickyip0520 wrote:
I was stuck with A and D for a while, but D does not weaken the conclusion as the last person who bought the appliance would still need to pay the fee....which effectively reduces the waste.....
Yes, and it will also encourage people to pass an appliance on rather than discard it, which helps the conclusion ("imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively").
_________________
VP
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1030
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V42
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

27 May 2019, 00:51
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.

Quote:
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.

Hi my honorable expert,
MartyTargetTestPrep, jennpt, AjiteshArun, GMATNinja
If I put the word "however" in the starting of the sentence (like below), will there be any problem in the argument or in the answer choice?
However, imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.
Why this "however" is used in the starting of the sentence most of the times, and middle of the two parts (like this one) in a sentence for some cases?
So far I know, "however" is used to change the direction of the previous part of any specific sentence. So, has the green part (only) changed the direction or the green part along with red part (simultaneously) change the direction of the previous part of the argument (To reduce waste of raw materials........)?
Thanks_-
_________________
“The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained in sudden flight but, they while their companions slept, they were toiling upwards in the night.”

Do you need official questions for Quant?
3700 Unique Official GMAT Quant Questions
------
SEARCH FOR ALL TAGS
GMAT Club Tests
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is   [#permalink] 27 May 2019, 00:51

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by