Last visit was: 18 May 2026, 15:35 It is currently 18 May 2026, 15:35
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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 (Medium)|   Weaken|                                 
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,251
Own Kudos:
329
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,251
Kudos: 329
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 24 Aug 2022, 16:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
jabhatta2
I would argue, you would have to assume (ii) ONLY is taking place if you select (A) as the answer.

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

Agree ?
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.
Show more

Hi avigutman - if you could quickly elaborate why (i), (iii) and (iv) are not plausible scenarios when thinking of (A) -- that would be great..
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
916
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 916
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 24 Aug 2022, 17:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
If you could quickly elaborate why (i), (iii) and (iv) are not plausible scenarios when thinking of (A) -- that would be great..
Show more
We're talking about requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. Who's doing the discarding, jabhatta2? JD. When? At the end of the appliance's life.
Quote:
To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold.
Show more
We're looking at answer choice (A)
Quote:
(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.
Show more
What does "cost of disposing of an appliance properly" mean? Well, when JD discards his appliance (properly or improperly), it doesn't cost him anything. If the government proceeds with the plan to impose a fee when the appliance is first sold, JD still won't have to pay anything when he is ready to dispose of the appliance properly (he already covered the cost of salvage, when he purchased the appliance). So, what is answer choice (A) talking about when it says "Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly?" Well, the author argued in favour of imposing the fee at the time of salvage. If the government follows the author's advice, who will have to pay that fee?

jabhatta2
This increase in the cost of disposing of an appliance properly is borne either by
(i) JD at the time of purchase
Show more
But, the fee is to be imposed at the time of salvage.
jabhatta2
(iii) Walmart (Retailer)
Show more
But, the fee is to be imposed at the time of salvage.
jabhatta2
(iv) Government itself (Increased taxes)
Show more
But, the government is the one doing the increasing.
User avatar
vv65
User avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2015
Last visit: 30 Apr 2026
Posts: 536
Own Kudos:
405
 [1]
Given Kudos: 773
Location: India
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Posts: 536
Kudos: 405
 [1]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 24 Aug 2022, 20:50
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
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.
...
Whenever the new disposal fee is applied, its going to incentivize improper disposal practices.

Hence i knocked out (A) Thoughts ?
Show more
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
User avatar
Oppenheimer1945
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2019
Last visit: 27 Apr 2026
Posts: 781
Own Kudos:
666
Given Kudos: 236
Location: India
Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80
GPA: 7.81
Schools: INSEAD '26 (D) ISB '27 (D) IIMB '26 (A) IIMA '26 (A) HEC '26 (D) LBS '26 IESE '27 (D) Fuqua '27 (WL) Tepper '27 (WL)
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q90 V76 DI80
Posts: 781
Kudos: 666
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 22 Jun 2023, 11:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyTargetTestPrep
Asad
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,

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_-
"However" is used to show contrast between the thought expressed by a clause and the thought expressed by a preceding clause. "However" can be placed before, in the middle of, or after the clause to which it is attached without a significant change in meaning expressed resulting from the choice of placement.

Writers choose where to place "however" by considering rhythm and emphasis.

In this case, by placing "however" after the clause that it operates on, the writer has allowed that clause to come directly after the preceding clause, and, as a result, the two contrasting clauses are adjacent, with the result that the discussion of the fee flows well.

So, yes, the argument and the answer choices would work fine were "however" placed at the beginning of rather than at the end of the clause on which it operates.

By the way, in this case, if "however" were to be placed in the middle of that clause, the emphasis would be a bit illogical, though, depending on where "however" were placed, the sentence might still basically express the same thought. Notice how awkward the emphasis is in the following version. The emphasis is illogically placed on "would":

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

The sentence is much better with "however" placed at the end of the clause.
Show more

Dear MartyTargetTestPrep ,
The placement of however is very confusing in the passage. I cannot understand the real meaning of the whole.

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.


vs


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. 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.


Here version 2 is sounding more meaningful compared to version 1.

Today i learnt that "however" can be randomly placed in the middle of sentence where contrast is changing. So Strange !
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,471
Own Kudos:
5,652
 [1]
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: 3,471
Kudos: 5,652
 [1]
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 22 Jun 2023, 11:58
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
samagra21
Dear MartyTargetTestPrep ,
The placement of however is very confusing in the passage. I cannot understand the real meaning of the whole.

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.


vs


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. 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.


Here version 2 is sounding more meaningful compared to version 1.
Show more
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.
User avatar
Contropositive
User avatar
Joined: 21 Oct 2023
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 21
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q86 V81 DI77
GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q86 V81 DI77
Posts: 53
Kudos: 19
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 22 Jan 2024, 00:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
aditliverpoolfc
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?
The government's broader objective is fine, but we'll have to restrict ourselves to the conclusion. Let's take a look at some of the information that we're given:

1. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. ← The government is planning to charge a fee at the point of sale.
2. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively... ← This is the conclusion, that it is better to charge the fee at the time of salvage than to charge it at the point of sale.

To strengthen or weaken the conclusion, we'll have to strengthen or weaken (2). That is, we'll have to show that "shifting the fee to later" ("at the time of salvage" instead of "when the appliance is first sold") is a good or bad idea.

Option B says:

3. The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.

This just says that the fee will not provide manufacturers any incentive to produce appliances that are more durable. But saying something about the fee in general doesn't help us understand whether the fee should be "shifted to later". That is, to strengthen or weaken this argument, we'll have to take the fee as a given, and focus on whether to charge it (a) when the appliance is first sold or (b) at the time of salvage.

This means that option B neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion.
Show more

Hi AjiteshArun,

Can i say that (B) is rather strengthening the argument?
Here is why i think so: Argument says, Government is planning X, but lets do Y because of Z.

(B) says, yes ''X'' won't work, so isn't it someway nudging us to choose Y instead? Hence strengthens the argument!
User avatar
mpobisetty
User avatar
Joined: 06 Dec 2021
Last visit: 27 Oct 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
30
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
Posts: 65
Kudos: 30
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 22 Oct 2024, 02:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.

If there is a cost associated with disposing off appliances properly (say handing them over to salvagers), then people tend to dispose them off improperly (say throw them in the trash). So charging a fees later may work against successful salvaging. Correct.
Show more
Hi KarishmaB, had a question. The argument really does not seem to be referring to "Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly" (from $x to $y).

The argument is just debating the "timing" of when the salvage fees should be imposed: at the time when the appliance is sold or when the appliance is discarded.

Kindly let me know your thoughts.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 May 2026
Posts: 16,469
Own Kudos:
79,655
Given Kudos: 485
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,469
Kudos: 79,655
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 22 Oct 2024, 03:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mpobisetty
KarishmaB
(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.

If there is a cost associated with disposing off appliances properly (say handing them over to salvagers), then people tend to dispose them off improperly (say throw them in the trash). So charging a fees later may work against successful salvaging. Correct.
Hi KarishmaB, had a question. The argument really does not seem to be referring to "Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly" (from $x to $y).

The argument is just debating the "timing" of when the salvage fees should be imposed: at the time when the appliance is sold or when the appliance is discarded.

Kindly let me know your thoughts.
Show more

Timing of the fee changes the cost of disposing. Overall cost doesn't change but cost of buying or disposing gets impacted.

If I have to pay an upfront fee while buying, the buy price increases, but the disposing cost is the same. If the recycling agency charges $100 to pick up the old appliance and take it away (say transport cost), that remains the same.

If I have to pay the cost of salvage at the time of disposing, then my cost of disposing increases. On top of $100, I have to pay another $200 as salvage fee. The cost of buying on the other hand is lower. But cost of disposing off has increased. Now I may want to just throw away the appliance on the curb and walk away. I may not want to dispose it off properly. This is what (A) says and hence is correct.
User avatar
RachelNgn
User avatar
Joined: 20 Mar 2024
Last visit: 25 Dec 2024
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 1
Location: Viet Nam
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 29 Oct 2024, 02:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
As I read, answer A does not clearly show that the time of applying this fee. "Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly" can be applied at the time of first sold or the time of disposing. It means the gov may require the appliance supplier to include this fee into the appliances' price right at the time they sold it or they can wait until the appliances be disposed to collect that charge.
So we do not know this answer is talking about the pros of charging the fee at the time of salvage or the pros of charging the fee at the time of sale??
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
avatar
jamiedimonn
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2024
Last visit: 02 May 2026
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 32
Kudos: 4
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 11 Jan 2025, 01:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion – imposing a fee at the time of salvage would lead to reduction in waste
WE NEED TO PROVE A FACTOR THAT SAYS NO REDUCTION IN WASTE
A) HOLD
B) We do not know. nothing about this in the passage
C) We do not know whether they will be holding the item that long or will dispose it early
D) But people who buy it may have to or may not have to pay salvage which leads to the fact that they may or may not dispose perfectly
E) Nothing about costs in the passage.

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 of 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.


Show SpoilerSOLUTION
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.
­
Show more
User avatar
SmileAndSolve
User avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2024
Last visit: 17 May 2026
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
34
Given Kudos: 300
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 4
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 46
Kudos: 34
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 20 Jun 2025, 11:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
🔍 Step-by-Step Breakdown of the Question
✅ Step 1: Identify the Conclusion
Conclusion: Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively.

This is the main argument — it’s what the author wants us to believe.

✅ Step 2: Identify the Premise (supporting evidence)
Because: Consumers tend to keep old appliances longer when they face a fee to discard them.

So the logic is:

People don’t like paying fees.

If you charge the fee later (at discard time), people delay discarding → less waste.

Therefore, delaying the fee = more effective waste reduction.

✅ Step 3: The Question Task
“Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?”

So you want to weaken the idea that:

“Charging the fee at discard time reduces waste more effectively.”

⚠️ Your Error: Focused on the Word “Longer”
You selected (C):

"For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years."

That restates what the argument already said (that the fee is paid later).
But it doesn’t weaken the idea that this would reduce waste more effectively.

✅ The Correct Answer: (A)
"Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly."

This directly weakens the conclusion.

It says:

Yes, people will keep their appliances longer if there’s a discard fee...

But many may just illegally dump them or bypass salvage.

→ So waste may not be reduced, or might even increase in improper form.

📉 Effectiveness of waste reduction drops → conclusion is weakened.
User avatar
AnuK2222
User avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2023
Last visit: 13 Oct 2025
Posts: 121
Own Kudos:
114
Given Kudos: 845
Location: India
Schools: ISB '25
GPA: 3.8
WE:Project Management (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Schools: ISB '25
Posts: 121
Kudos: 114
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid 05 Jul 2025, 06:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Very interesting and deceiving Q. was thrown off by the "however" right after conclusion and started wondering if correct weakener should align with that part and ended up selecting C.option A definitely makes more sense because it weakens the premise that paying a fee will make people be more careful about discarding waste. Simple is complex and complex is simple!!
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7393 posts
AbhishekP220108
579 posts
bhanu29
368 posts