NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 14:30 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 14:30
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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

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

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   3   4   
Tags:
Difficulty: 605-655 Levelx   Weakenx                           
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
thanhmaitran
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 2803 [340]
Given Kudos: 15
Send PM
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   22 Aug 2015, 08:49
24
Kudos
312
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (02:12) correct 31% (02:37) wrong based on 10300 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
Most Helpful Reply
avatar
anupamadw
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Posts: 107
Own Kudos [?]: 123 [43]
Given Kudos: 373
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V29
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   12 Sep 2015, 04:58
37
Kudos
6
Bookmarks
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.
avatar
sa2222
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 109
Own Kudos [?]: 153 [29]
Given Kudos: 74
Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Leadership
GPA: 3.97
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   19 Feb 2016, 16:35
24
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
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
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14823
Own Kudos [?]: 64922 [19]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   27 May 2020, 05:45
13
Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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 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.



- Govt is considering salvaging discarded appliances.
- To recover cost of salvage, impose fee when the appliance is first sold.
- 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

We need to weaken that imposing fee at the time of salvage will reduce waste more effectively. We need to provide a reason why imposing fee later may not help reduce waste effectively - why salvaging may not be successful in this case.

(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.

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

Irrelevant. We are talking about reducing waste by salvaging. Manufacturing more durable appliances is out of scope.

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

Doesn't matter. There will be people with appliances of various ages.

(D) People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.

Person who is disposing off the appliances (and not selling) will pay the fees.

(E) Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.

The point is what happens at the point of throwing off. If the fee is applicable then, will it lead to less wastage.
General Discussion
User avatar
b9n920
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2014
Posts: 152
Own Kudos [?]: 431 [12]
Given Kudos: 75
Schools: Molson '18 Ryerson'17 Great Lakes '17
GMAT Date: 08-04-2015
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   04 Sep 2015, 00:43
8
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
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.
User avatar
L
Skywalker18
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2101
Own Kudos [?]: 8810 [10]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   05 Oct 2015, 06:07
9
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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.

:roll:
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63668 [5]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   08 May 2020, 19:53
5
Kudos
Expert Reply
jayarora wrote:
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!

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.

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.

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
S
SVaidyaraman
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 589
Own Kudos [?]: 1519 [4]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   14 Mar 2016, 20:21
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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.
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [4]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   01 Jun 2019, 08:27
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
aditliverpoolfc wrote:
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.
User avatar
D
abhishekdadarwal2009
Director
Director
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 552
Own Kudos [?]: 436 [3]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   09 Mar 2017, 09:36
3
Kudos
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.
User avatar
L
BillyZ
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1174
Own Kudos [?]: 20713 [3]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   06 Aug 2017, 06:08
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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.
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [2]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   16 Apr 2019, 21:53
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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").
User avatar
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5137 [2]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   02 May 2022, 11:21
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Dhwanii wrote:
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.

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
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [2]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   02 May 2022, 21:53
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Dhwanii wrote:
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.

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
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5137 [2]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   03 May 2022, 20:19
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
dcoolguy wrote:
How A is correct, since its talking about disposing?

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
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5181
Own Kudos [?]: 4653 [2]
Given Kudos: 631
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   22 Aug 2022, 20:01
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
pielkay wrote:
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

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.
User avatar
L
arvind910619
Director
Director
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Status:Learning
Posts: 876
Own Kudos [?]: 566 [1]
Given Kudos: 755
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   07 Aug 2017, 22:55
1
Kudos
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 answer is A
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
User avatar
S
sunny91
Manager
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 181
Own Kudos [?]: 59 [1]
Given Kudos: 289
Location: India
Schools: AIM Manila '20 Fisher '19 Rotman '20 Sauder '20 Schulich Jan 18 Intake Queen's 19 Ivey '19 Kelley '20 IIM-A"19 ESSEC '20 Insead Sept'18 Ross '20 IIMU PGPX
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.54
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   29 Oct 2017, 21:54
1
Kudos
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.
User avatar
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5137 [1]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   27 May 2019, 06:00
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Asad 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.

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.
User avatar
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5137 [1]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink] New post   28 May 2019, 15:49
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Asad wrote:
MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
The sentence is much better with "however" placed at theend of the clause.

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.

This version:

Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however,

There is a clause, and then, "however."
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is consid [#permalink]
28 May 2019, 15:49
 1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions