Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 05:28 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 05:28
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
605-655 Level|   Weaken|                                 
avatar
jayarora
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Last visit: 26 Apr 2025
Posts: 163
Own Kudos:
237
 [1]
Given Kudos: 116
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: Harvard '24 (A)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V44 (Online)
GPA: 3.61
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Harvard '24 (A)
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V44 (Online)
Posts: 163
Kudos: 237
 [1]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 30 Apr 2020, 04:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Experts please help.

I feel that choice (B) does factor in the before and after scenario. Since the consumers are anyway going to keep the appliance for longer when the fee is levied at the disposal stage, manufacturers need not bother about adding durability elements. In case the fee is levied at the point of purchase, the consumers will not keep the appliance for as long and the manufacturer would have greater incentive to ensure durability. Such a scenario directly impacts 'reduce waste of raw materials' as more durable goods would reduce raw materials.

Also I felt option A is poorly worded - Increasing the cost of disposing. We are not talking about any increase here. The fees in both the scenarios are same! The option meant to convey 'Delaying the cost of disposing...'
Please share your thoughts. Thanks!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,788
 [7]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,788
 [7]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 08 May 2020, 19:53
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jayarora
Experts please help.

I feel that choice (B) does factor in the before and after scenario. Since the consumers are anyway going to keep the appliance for longer when the fee is levied at the disposal stage, manufacturers need not bother about adding durability elements. In case the fee is levied at the point of purchase, the consumers will not keep the appliance for as long and the manufacturer would have greater incentive to ensure durability. Such a scenario directly impacts 'reduce waste of raw materials' as more durable goods would reduce raw materials.

Also I felt option A is poorly worded - Increasing the cost of disposing. We are not talking about any increase here. The fees in both the scenarios are same! The option meant to convey 'Delaying the cost of disposing...'
Please share your thoughts. Thanks!
Show more
The argument states that:

  • “Consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.”
  • And then it concludes that “imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively” THAN imposing the fee at the time of purchase.

So, the argument’s conclusion is not about whether or not to charge a fee, but WHEN to charge it. With that in mind, we can look to eliminate answer choices, keeping their precise language in mind.

Here's (B) again:
Quote:
(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
Show more
So, imposing a fee will not affect the durability of the appliances. But remember, the argument’s conclusion was about WHEN the fee is applied.

(B) addresses the effects of a fee on manufacturers processes, but it does not say anything about when that fee is applied. In other words, the answer choice gives us no reason to think that applying the fee earlier would be more effective. We can eliminate (B).

And here’s (A):
Quote:
(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.
Show more
You’re right to note that the fees would be the same in both circumstances, but again the wording of the answer choice is precise. It speaks to increasing the cost of disposing an appliance, not increasing the cost of fees.

If the fee were applied when at the time of purchase, it would increase the cost of purchasing the appliance, not the cost of disposing the appliance. (A) applies only when the fee is paid at the time of disposal, thus the incentive to dispose of the appliance improperly only increases with a later fee. For that reason, (A) weakens the argument and is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,112
Own Kudos:
32,888
 [1]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,112
Kudos: 32,888
 [1]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 30 Dec 2020, 09:38
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jayarora
Experts please help.

I feel that choice (B) does factor in the before and after scenario. Since the consumers are anyway going to keep the appliance for longer when the fee is levied at the disposal stage, manufacturers need not bother about adding durability elements. In case the fee is levied at the point of purchase, the consumers will not keep the appliance for as long and the manufacturer would have greater incentive to ensure durability. Such a scenario directly impacts 'reduce waste of raw materials' as more durable goods would reduce raw materials.

Also I felt option A is poorly worded - Increasing the cost of disposing. We are not talking about any increase here. The fees in both the scenarios are same! The option meant to convey 'Delaying the cost of disposing...'
Please share your thoughts. Thanks!
Show more


Hey Jayarora,

Choice B doesn't really affect the conclusion in any way. Let's say that the companies start making products that aren't very durable. This leads to shorter life-cycles, which leads to more waste. Now, does it matter whether the fee is charged at the point of sale or at the point of salvage? No matter the point at which the fee is charged, it will be funneled to reduce the wastage. This does not weaken the conclusion.



The correct answer choice hints at the fact that charging the fee at the point of salvage may make people dispose off the products improperly (without paying the fee.) This will cause a clear increase in waste. Hence A is the correct answer.

Hope this helps.
User avatar
kittle
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2021
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 318
Own Kudos:
161
Given Kudos: 618
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 318
Kudos: 161
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 15 Sep 2021, 20:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
anupamadw
thanhmaitran
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.
Show more


But my question is what does it mean by "effectively" reducing the wastage? Does it mean that "increasing the useful life of the appliance" would be called effectively reducing the wastage? Because I don't know how can be say that the fact consumers keep the appliances longer leads to more effective reduction in waste?

EMPOWERgmatVerbal - can you share thoughts?
User avatar
Basshead
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2024
Posts: 925
Own Kudos:
302
Given Kudos: 432
Location: United States
Posts: 925
Kudos: 302
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 20 Sep 2021, 10:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
We're dealing with a weaken question here. The argument concludes that imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively.

The right answer will lead us to believe the above statement is not necessarily true. Perhaps imposing the fee at the time of salvage would not reduce waste more effectively than imposing the fee at the time the item is purchased. Let's go through the choices:

A - Interesting. If the cost of disposing an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly, then our conclusion is weakened -- imposing the fee at the time of salvage would not reduce waste. It's hard to picture a better choice than A, but let's continue.

B - The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable. However, does this mean the fee provides manufacturers with an incentive to make products that are not durable? We can't conclude that -- we simply know the fee would not lead to to more durable products. Durability is not really relevant in this case because we're looking to find a choice that suggests imposing the fee at the time of salvage would not reduce waste more effectively than imposing the fee at the time the item is purchased.

C - The salvage fee would still need to be paid when the time comes -- C is out.

D - People who sell their appliances to others might not need to pay the salvage fee, but the people buying the appliances will need to pay. This doesn't weaken the conclusion.

E - We need an answer choice that gives us reason to believe that imposing the fee at the time of salvage would not reduce waste more effectively than imposing the fee at the time the item is purchased -- E explains a work around but doesn't speak to the impact of a fee. E is out.

A is the correct answer.
User avatar
100mitra
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2019
Last visit: 06 Jul 2022
Posts: 714
Own Kudos:
629
Given Kudos: 49
Status:Learning
Posts: 714
Kudos: 629
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 21 Sep 2021, 00:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Correct option : A

CR Stem Exam : weaken

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 of it improperly.
Correct:
- this actually weaken the conclusion of the passage, if the fee collected is less than the savage dispossing, still the govt will end up in loss

(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
Wrong:
- No Incentive to manufacture, full amount collected, profit to govt, claim intention successful, Strenghten

(C) For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
Wrong:
- this is out of scope kind option, as number of years, fee not collected, but during purchase fee is deducted, how refund will work?

(D) People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
Wrong:
- Fee is collected at the time of purchase, later after sell not inferred in passage

(E) Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense
Wrong:
Already purchased, rather than dispose, if repaired, the intention of govt is acheived
User avatar
Dinesh654
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 11 Aug 2024
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 217
Status:In learning mode...
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 155
Kudos: 9
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 02 May 2022, 02:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello experts,
please help me to correct my reasoning for choice A and E
first of all I didn't know the meaning of salvage!
from the context (household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded), I thought its about breaking a discarded material for which certain cost has been charged.
In A, its about disposing an appliances while the argument was on breaking. thw two are different plans. still I liked the context of choice A ( increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly)

eliminated B,c,d.

got stuck in E, many appliances, which are discarded could be repaired at a small fee.
now, because of slavage fee at the time of discarding, they will either dump the appliances anyway or they will give the fee. this all somehow increasing the waste, while the appliances could have repaired.
means we could have saved the waste in the first place.

I was not totally convinced with E but since, my mind rejected A in the start, I got convinced with E. I would have selected A with 100% confidence if instead of disposing, salvage or breaking was there.
avatar
Dhwanii
avatar
Joined: 16 Mar 2021
Last visit: 04 Feb 2023
Posts: 73
Own Kudos:
13
Given Kudos: 96
Posts: 73
Kudos: 13
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 02 May 2022, 10:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If someone can correct my understanding of usage of 'however'
I have read explanations given above and conclusion is / author's opinion is '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.
I don't understand why 'however' is placed after 'effectively' suggesting that 'Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively' however ( it cannot be so -showing a contrast) 'because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.
In this case I feel 'however' should be placed at the beginning of sentence However, imposing .... because... as we want to show a contrast between salvage costs charged at the time purchasing vs charging it while discarding. By placing however in the middle of the last sentence, it illogically implies Imposing fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively but it cannot be the case since consumers will tend to keep old appliances longer.
AjiteshArun MartyTargetTestPrep sir, please if you can help.
User avatar
PyjamaScientist
User avatar
Admitted - Which School Forum Moderator
Joined: 25 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,118
Own Kudos:
1,307
 [1]
Given Kudos: 633
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Ross '25 (M$)
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
Posts: 1,118
Kudos: 1,307
 [1]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 02 May 2022, 10:59
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dhwanii
If someone can correct my understanding of usage of 'however'
I have read explanations given above and conclusion is / author's opinion is '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.
I don't understand why 'however' is placed after 'effectively' suggesting that 'Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively' however ( it cannot be so -showing a contrast) 'because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.
In this case I feel 'however' should be placed at the beginning of sentence However, imposing .... because... as we want to show a contrast between salvage costs charged at the time purchasing vs charging it while discarding. By placing however in the middle of the last sentence, it illogically implies Imposing fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively but it cannot be the case since consumers will tend to keep old appliances longer.
AjiteshArun MartyTargetTestPrep sir, please if you can help.
Show more
Hi Dhwanii,
However is not used here to show contrast rather to stress more emphatically on the derived result from the action of imposing salvaging fees on the appliances purchased.
There are two uses of the word however-
    1. used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously.
    Eg : "People tend to put on weight in middle age. However, gaining weight is not inevitable"
    2. in whatever way; regardless of how.
    Eg : "however you look at it, you can't criticize that"
You seem to be referring to the first usage. But, it is the second meaning that is at play here.

Hope it helps.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,580
 [3]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,580
 [3]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 02 May 2022, 11:21
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dhwanii
If someone can correct my understanding of usage of 'however'
I have read explanations given above and conclusion is / author's opinion is '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.
I don't understand why 'however' is placed after 'effectively' suggesting that 'Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively' however ( it cannot be so -showing a contrast) 'because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.
In this case I feel 'however' should be placed at the beginning of sentence However, imposing .... because... as we want to show a contrast between salvage costs charged at the time purchasing vs charging it while discarding. By placing however in the middle of the last sentence, it illogically implies Imposing fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively but it cannot be the case since consumers will tend to keep old appliances longer.
Show more
Hi Dhwanii.

When "however" is placed in the middle of a sentence, it can still communicates that there is a contrast between what the sentence in which it is placed says and what the preceding sentence says.

In this case, the meaning communicated via the use of "however" in the middle of the sentence is basically the same as the meaning that would be communicated if "however" were instead at the beginning of the sentence. After all, as you noticed, "however" certainly cannot indicate that there is a contrast between "Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively," and "because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them," since the latter is the reason for the former.

In other words, the meaning conveyed by

"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,"

is basically the same as the meaning conveyed by

"the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. However, imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively."
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 02 May 2022, 21:53
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dhwanii
In this case I feel 'however' should be placed at the beginning of sentence However, imposing .... because... as we want to show a contrast between salvage costs charged at the time purchasing vs charging it while discarding.
Show more
Hi Dhwanii,

As has been pointed out above, when however is used to show contrast, it's possible to use it in multiple positions (beginning, middle, end).

1. However, the Prime Minister did not eat the Korma.

2. The Prime Minister, however, did not eat the Korma.

3. The Prime Minister did not eat the Korma, however.
User avatar
Dinesh654
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 11 Aug 2024
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 217
Status:In learning mode...
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 155
Kudos: 9
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 03 May 2022, 02:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
Hello experts,
please help me to correct my reasoning for choice A and E
first of all I didn't know the meaning of salvage!
from the context (household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded), I thought its about breaking a discarded material for which certain cost has been charged.
In A, its about disposing an appliances while the argument was on breaking. thw two are different plans. still I liked the context of choice A ( increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly)

eliminated B,c,d.

got stuck in E, many appliances, which are discarded could be repaired at a small fee.
now, because of slavage fee at the time of discarding, they will either dump the appliances anyway or they will give the fee. this all somehow increasing the waste, while the appliances could have repaired.
means we could have saved the waste in the first place.

I was not totally convinced with E but since, my mind rejected A in the start, I got convinced with E. I would have selected A with 100% confidence if instead of disposing, salvage or breaking was there.
Show more

How A is correct, since its talking about disposing?
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,580
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,580
 [2]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 03 May 2022, 20:19
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
How A is correct, since its talking about disposing?
Show more
The passage is about what happens when consumers are "discarding" appliances.

Since "disposing of" in choice (A) is a synonym of "discarding," what choice (A) says applies to what's discussed in the passage.
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 771
Own Kudos:
553
Given Kudos: 346
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 771
Kudos: 553
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 19 Jun 2022, 11:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The plan is to reduce the wastage by charging fees at the time of disposal and this is also the conclusion

To weaken it we need to show that charging fees at the time of disposal will not lead to reduced wastage. CHoice B shows that manufacturers have no incentive to improve durability which means that they would make less durable products that the customers will be forced to discard irrespective of the fees so clearly the plan to reduce waste will not work despite imposing fees and hence it is a weakener. I am not sure why it is not considered one. MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja KarishmaB ThatDudeKnows
User avatar
ThatDudeKnows
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2022
Last visit: 27 Jun 2024
Posts: 1,070
Own Kudos:
977
 [1]
Given Kudos: 79
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,070
Kudos: 977
 [1]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 19 Jun 2022, 11:35
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
The plan is to reduce the wastage by charging fees at the time of disposal and this is also the conclusion

To weaken it we need to show that charging fees at the time of disposal will not lead to reduced wastage. CHoice B shows that manufacturers have no incentive to improve durability which means that they would make less durable products that the customers will be forced to discard irrespective of the fees so clearly the plan to reduce waste will not work despite imposing fees and hence it is a weakener. I am not sure why it is not considered one. MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja KarishmaB ThatDudeKnows
Show more

Elite097

The most important take-away here is that the argument is not about reducing waste of raw materials or about WHETHER to charge a fee, it's about WHEN to charge a fee.

We are tasked with weakening the position that charging at the time of disposal is better than charging at the time of purchase.

Answer choice B might have something to do with the first few words of the argument, "to reduce waste of raw materials," but it doesn't do anything to address the temporal component of the argument.

Answer choice A gives us a clear reason why charging a fee at the time of disposal won't work very well.
User avatar
Namangupta1997
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Last visit: 05 Apr 2025
Posts: 145
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 63
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 145
Kudos: 8
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 21 Jun 2022, 03:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi ThatDudeKnows

Option A is the best of the lot. But as I could understand from the passage, the conclusion is that imposing the fee at the time of disposing will reduce the AMOUNT of waste. Option A does not talk about amount of waste. It is more focused on the MANNER in which the waste would be disposed as a result of the fee.
User avatar
ThatDudeKnows
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2022
Last visit: 27 Jun 2024
Posts: 1,070
Own Kudos:
977
 [1]
Given Kudos: 79
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,070
Kudos: 977
 [1]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 21 Jun 2022, 05:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Namangupta1997
Hi ThatDudeKnows

Option A is the best of the lot. But as I could understand from the passage, the conclusion is that imposing the fee at the time of disposing will reduce the AMOUNT of waste. Option A does not talk about amount of waste. It is more focused on the MANNER in which the waste would be disposed as a result of the fee.
Show more

Namangupta1997

Let's start by making sure we have the correct conclusion. The goal of the PLAN is to reduce waste of raw materials, but that is not the conclusion of the ARGUMENT. The conclusion of the argument is that we should charge a fee at the time of disposal. We do this in order to reduce waste and we believe charging a fee at the time of disposal will be more effective than charging a fee at the time of purchase, so those are the premises.

Three notes:
1) On plan arguments, the plan itself is almost always the conclusion. The reason for the plan (the goal) is a premise. And if there's some secondary justification, that's also a premise.
2) A good way to know whether you've picked the right conclusion is to try the "why" test. Let's say you you pick what you did. Now, ask why. If the rest of the argument doesn't answer the question, you've got the wrong conclusion. The conclusion can't be about reducing waste since, if we ask ourselves why, the plan doesn't answer the question. It's the other way around. Make the plan the conclusion and ask yourself "why." Now we have reducing waste as an excellent premise.
3) Compound premises are much more common than compound conclusions. You chose "imposing the fee at the time of disposing will reduce the AMOUNT of waste." That's compound in that there are two things going on: impose disposal fee AND fee will reduce waste. Phrased another way: impose disposal fee BECAUSE fee will reduce waste. That "because" is a great clue that whatever follows is going to be the explanation, not the conclusion. I'd keep impose disposal fee as the conclusion and move fee will reduce waste to a premise.

Back to answer choice A. You say it "does not talk about amount of waste." If we increase the incentive to dispose of an appliance improperly, we are going to have more people dumping their appliances somewhere (more waste) rather than those appliances being broken down for salvage.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 07 Jul 2022, 13:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have not seen the solution but I thought (A) and (B) were weakeners to an entirely DIFFERENT plan.

(A) and (B) were weakeners to this plan : Should we introduce a disposal fee or should we not introduce a disposal fee to begin with.

However, I thought the original argument was not about the above at all.

The original argument is instead -
(1) the disposal fee is going to happen ,come what may. That is no longer the question
(2) The only question now is -- when should one apply the disposal fee ?
Should the disposal fee be applied when consumers BUY appliances OR should the disposal fee be applied when consumers DISPOSE appliances.

I was looking for a weakener that weaken
User avatar
pielkay
User avatar
Joined: 12 Apr 2019
Last visit: 08 Jun 2025
Posts: 16
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 19
Status: Preparing
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
Schools: ISB '24
WE:Analyst (Energy)
Schools: ISB '24
Posts: 16
Kudos: 10
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 22 Aug 2022, 03:36
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey GMATNinja and other wonderful Verbal Experts,

Answer option A talks about 'increasing' the cost for disposing of an appliance, while the argument talks about 'imposing' a cost for disposing of an appliance. The way answer option A is worded leads us to infer that there is already an existing cost for disposal of an appliance... isn't this a potential problem with this answer option?

Thanking you so much in advance,

Pritam
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 22 Aug 2022, 20:01
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pielkay
Hey GMATNinja and other wonderful Verbal Experts,

Answer option A talks about 'increasing' the cost for disposing of an appliance, while the argument talks about 'imposing' a cost for disposing of an appliance. The way answer option A is worded leads us to infer that there is already an existing cost for disposal of an appliance... isn't this a potential problem with this answer option?

Thanking you so much in advance,

Pritam
Show more
Hi pielkay,

Those aren't incompatible. For example, what the first half of option A effectively tells us is that the government-imposed fee makes disposing of an appliance more expensive. There may already be other costs associated with getting rid of an appliance, and increasing such costs will ~make more people want to get rid of their appliances in an improper manner. This weakens the argument, because the desired outcome is that discarded appliances be broken down for salvage.
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts