^^ AjiteshArun EducationAisle

The biggest issue i see with (A) is that (A) can apply to both situations
-- At the point of sale
AND/OR
-- At the point of salvage.

Lets say - the disposal fee is 20 $.

All (A) is saying is -- increasing the disposal fee from 20 $ to 30 $ is going to incentivize improper disposal practices.

But that will be the case if 30 $ if applied at the Point of sale and/or the 30 $ is applied at the point of salvage.

Whenever the new disposal fee is applied, its going to incentivize improper disposal practices.

Hence i knocked out (A)

Thoughts ?

Thank you so much, AjiteshArun! It is clear now.

Hi avigutman - The wording in (A) is suspicious. This is how I interepreted (A)

How can one be sure -- this is NOT THE WAY to read (A)

-- Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance at the point of sale
AND/OR
-- Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance at the point of salvage.

If you increase cost of disposing of an appliance at EITHER OF THESE TIMES -- either scenario incentivizes improper disposal practices.

Given this interepretation - i knocked out (A) because i thought (A) refered to BOTH scenarios (at the point of sales and/or at the point of salvage)

jabhatta2 can you help me understand the above, specifically? I don't follow that claim.
_________________

Struggled to put down my thoughts in words - made a very quick vid

Thanks jabhatta2, I watched the video. The problem is that you just repeated in the video what you had written in your post. I still haven’t heard you explain WHY applying a salvage fee at the point of sale would incentivize improper disposal. I can see why applying the salvage fee at the time of disposal would do so, but not at the point of sale. I’m pushing you to explain your thinking because I think that will help you improve your CR more generally, beyond this particular question.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Hi avigutman - thank you so much for reviewing the video.

I am not really sure why charging a salvage fee at the point of sale would incentivize improper disposal, except that i assume option (A) is true at all stages (please read below regarding stages)

Based on the question stem -- all the answer choices "are true"

I agree that in real life, charging a salvage fee at the point of sale SHOULD NOT incentivize improper disposal activities , BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ASSUMPTION ON MY PART

Now - the problem with (A) is that -- the phrase "increase the cost of disposing of an appliance properly" can be applicable at
- (stage 1) the point of sale
and/or at
- (stage 2) the point of discarding

Given option (A) doesnt really state which stage is the italicized blue phrase applicable to, a test taker has to assume that the blue is applicable to either stage

For me then to "pro-actively eliminate" stage (1) based on my personal experience, would be an assumption on my part

So i thought (A) was true in the case of (stage 1) and/or (stage 2)

Thus i knocked out (A)

Ah, now I get what you are saying, jabhatta2. Please explain this part, specifically:


_________________

Hi avigutman - The phrase "increase the cost of disposing of an appliance properly” is open ended.

Thinking about meaning - there can be many ways to “increase the cost of disposing an appliance properly”, namely

(1) Charge a salvage fee.
(2) Charge other fees related to disposal (maybe charging for pick-up for example..)

These charges can be applied either at (Stage 1) or (Stage 2) [in fact, the whole argument is about which stage do we want to charge !]

If I replace the phrase “increase the cost of disposing of an appliance properly” with “charging a salvage fee”, (A) re-phrased now becomes



Now the fundamental issue with (A-rephrased) is

(A- rephrased) is possible to applicable at (stage 1) and /or stage 2

I’m sorry jabhatta2, I don’t see how one can possibly impact, at the point of sale, the cost of disposing an appliance PROPERLY. You can only do so at the point of disposal.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

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.

Goal: To reduce waste of raw materials

Action: Household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded.

Requirement: The cost of salvage has to be covered.

Government's Plan: To charge a fees when the appliance is sold first.

Author's Suggestion: The fees should be charged at the time of salvage to reduce the waste effectively because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.

To weaken the author reasoning: What if to circumvent the salvage fee, consumers start digging holes in the ground and put their discarded appliances there. The whole waste reduction plan gets sabotaged.

Therefore Option A

Hi avigutman - i think my issue is on the phrase "Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly" ... There are many litereal interepretations of this phrase if i were to think of the literal meaning of this phase.



I thought of interpretation (1) and/or (2).

I think most readeres are thinking of interepretation (3) only

Using SC skills - i think one can make a case for either of these 3 interpretations

Since we both live in Ontario, jabhatta2, let's look at a real case of (interpretation 2), which happens at the point of sale:
If you purchase batteries, electronics, hazardous and special products or tires in Ontario, you may see an extra charge added to your receipt called an environmental fee, resource recovery fee, environmental handling fee, tire handling fee, eco-fee, recycling fee or something similar.
Now, jabhatta2, you must ask yourself: does this extra charge, which is added to your receipt, increase the cost of disposing of an appliance properly? I mean, it certainly increases your cost... But how does it increase the cost of proper disposal?
_________________

Hi avigutman - great example.

I would argue, this Extra charge (added to my receipt at the time of purchase) definitely increases MY COST.

Furthermore, this Extra charge IS the "the cost of disposing of an appliance properly" (borne by me, the customer)

So if you replace Extra charge in the place of "the cost of disposing of an appliance properly", you get in (A)



Which is why I keep interpretating it incorrectly.

But you (the customer) are not the one doing the disposing. The true cost of disposing of the appliance properly doesn't change just because the Retailer decided to pass the cost on to you. The true cost of disposing of the appliance properly is going to be what it is, regardless of whether the Retailer passed it on to you.

Even if you do interpret it that way, you should realize that it doesn't make any sense in the context of answer choice (A). Why on earth would the extra charge on your receipt incentivize you to dispose of the item improperly?

I disagree with this statement, jabhatta2. It's not an assumption, it's common sense.
_________________

Thanks avigutman

Interesting if i understand, what you are saying is, the chronology is the following :



This increase of 10 million CAD is borne either by
(i) JD at the time of purchase
(ii) JD at the time of discarding
(iii) Walmart (Retailer)
(iv) Government itself (Increased taxes)

I would argue, you would have to assume (i) ONLY is taking place if you select (A) as the answer.

Plausible scenarios within (A) - i.e. (ii), (iii), or (iv) - DONT weaken the conclusion.

Agree ?

Presumably eco fees are fees imposed by the government, so it doesn't make sense that they're borne by the government.
In general, it's probably better to visualize this with a cost of disposal per appliance, rather than overall for the nation (to better match the context of the problem).

Did you accidentally replace red and blue in the quote above, jabhatta2?
_________________

Ahh yes avigutman - (ii) definitely weakens

(i), (iii) and (iv) === dont really weaken

I agree, but I take exception to the words "assume" and "plausible." Please let me know if further discussion is needed to explain why (i), (iii), and (iv) are not plausible scenarios, jabhatta2.
_________________