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

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.

It's not true that 'Whenever the new disposal fee is applied, its going to incentivize improper disposal practices'.

A fee at the point of sale can be part of the initial bill. The retailer can collect it and pass it to the government or to the authorised recycling agency.

How to collect the fee at the point of disposal? How to keep track when the appliance is replaced? Suppose the appliance is a microwave oven. Some consumers may use the same oven for 20 years. Others may replace it after 2 years.

Whatever the period may be, the consumer will be responsible for paying the disposal fee and for ensuring that the appliance is disposed of properly.

Do you think many consumers will do this! Many will get rid of it quietly, perhaps by throwing it in a garbage dump. Who wants to pay money just to get rid of an old appliance?

The consumer will be responsible for proper disposal even if the fee is collected at the point of sale. But the consumer does not have to pay at the point of disposal. So the consumer is more likely to do the right thing and arrange for proper disposal

Posted from my mobile device

Those two versions express basically the same thing.

Here are some more examples with "however" in the middle of the second sentence:

John's bike is in good condition. His skateboard, however, is barely functional.

Many people believe that behavior is influenced by genetics. Some people disagree with this idea, however, as it's never been proven right.

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.

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.....

Answer A

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_-

One more question about the highlighted part Sir ( MartyTargetTestPrep )
Which version are you you talking about by saying end of clause?
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.

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, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them, however.

AjiteshArun

does b strengthen the argument?

as per option b, the manufacture will obviously save the cost of manufacturing, compromising the quality. Hence the appliances in any case will be prone to getting damaged not only due to prolonged usage, but also due to other miscl. reasons ie the damage will be more frequent, hence frequency of materials getting discarded will be more. hence the cost of salvage will be more, which obviously the govt. doesn't want. ....

Am i right?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

How A is correct, since its talking about disposing?

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

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.