The town of Springhill frequently must declare a water emergency, maki

Question

The town of Springhill frequently must declare a water emergency, making it temporarily unlawful to use water for such nonessential purposes as car washing. These emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives for water conservation. Actually, Springhill discourages conservation because each household pays a modest monthly flat fee for any amount of water below a certain usage threshold, and a substantial per-liter rate only after the threshold is reached.

Which one the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The Springhill authorities do a poor job of enforcing its water emergency laws and many people break the laws without incurring a penalty.
(B) The town council of Springhill recently refused to raise the threshold.
(C) The threshold is kept at a high enough level to exceed the water requirements of most households in Springhill.
(D) The threshold is not as high in Springhill as it is in neighboring towns.
(E) The threshold remains at the predetermined level specified by law until a change is approved by the Springhill town council.

sagarsir · Answer

Conclusion-- spring hill discourages conservation....
A-- does not directly relate to the conclusion
B-- weakens rather strengthen
C-- corroborates the conclusion and hence is the best choice
D-- irrelevant
E-- irrelevant

Kudos please!!

NickHalden · Answer

Hi  sagarsingh : 
I feel the conclusion here is :  'Emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives'

sagarsir · Answer

The town of Springhill frequently must declare a water emergency, making it temporarily unlawful to use water for such nonessential purposes as car washing. These emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives for water conservation. Actually, Springhill discourages conservation because each household pays a modest monthly flat fee for any amount of water below a certain usage threshold, and a substantial per-liter rate only after the threshold is reached.

Hi NickHalden

Please look at the tone of the argument... Paraphrase it! It says.. The town is forced to declare emergencies that are avoidable through incentives for water conservation. Then, by giving an example of threshold usage the argument charges or concludes that the springhill is actually not interested in providing for conservation.

Please press kudos if this helps....!!

sagarsir · Answer

Hi.... In the context of the argument it is a fact. Also this doesn't seem to be the central theme or the conclusion around which other supports are provided. Look it this way... The argument does say that emergencies could be avoided ... But then moves on to give example of threshold usage to show that the intention to do so is not there.so the central theme is the intention .

Hope this helps!

jeffinthehouse · Answer

Hi Sagarsir, and NickHalden, In a way, I feel you're both right. There is definitely some opinion in saying that "Emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives", and also in saying " Springhill discourages conservation because each household pays a modest monthly flat fee for any amount of water below a certain usage threshold" because that's the author is asserting an opinion that Springhill is discouraging conservation.

If we were to treat this as a bolded statement question, wouldn't the claim that emergencies could be avoided a subsidiary conclusion in support of the main conclusion that Springhill discourages conservation? Maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe I've just been studying too much, but that's how I see it.

sagarsir · Answer

Hi You are absolutely correct. I fact tricky questions play on sub-conclusions, which when taken as conclusion gives incorrect answers. An important property of conclusion is that it never supports any other statement in the argument. It is just a matter of structure that an argument can also have a sub conclusion that supports conclusion, as in the question under discussion.

aarushisingla · Answer

Hey, 
Could you please explain what is the conclusion in this argument as I am not able to understand the question and hence, I am getting the wrong answer.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Aarushi

The stimulus can be broken down in the following manner:

Premises: 
i) The town of Springhill frequently must declare a water emergency --> Springhill frequently faces water scarcity.
ii) Each household in Springhill pays a modest monthly flat fee for any amount of water below a certain usage threshold, and a substantial per-liter rate only after the threshold is reached.

Conclusion: 
a) The above tariff structure discourages water conservation.
b) These emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives for water conservation.

The above two points stated as the Conclusion could also be considered to be one combined conclusion - that currently Springhill discourages water conservation and reversing this situation could lead to avoidance of water emergencies in the future.

Since we are asked to strengthen the conclusion, we are looking for something to support (a) or (b) or both. Option (C) does that well - if the threshold exceeds water requirements of most households in Springhill, then the presence of a flat fee would discourage conservation since the households would have to pay the same fee even if they reduce their water consumption. It supports (a) and hence is the correct answer.

Hope this helps.

aarushisingla · Answer

Yes, I got it. Thankyou so much

shameekv1989 · Answer

Hi  svasan05  :- If we consider "These emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives for water conservation." as the conclusion then wouldn't Option C weaken the argument.

As it says that the current thresholds are already at a level people of Spring Hill can conserve water and thus by providing incentives for water conservation would add nothing to conserve water?

I, like  aarushisingla  got it incorrect as well just because I thought the conclusion is Emergencies could be avoided by providing incentives and that Option C is actually weakening it.

Moreover, I would like to hear thoughts about other options as well on what you thought on those and want to verify my thinking with that as a reference.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Shameek

First observation that I have is the following:

You say that current thresholds are already at a level that people can conserve water. I am not sure of this reasoning - could you explain this a little further please? More specifically, how exactly do current thresholds allow people to conserve water?

As per my reasoning, current thresholds (such that charge is levied per usage of water only on exceeding this threshold) exceed the water usage of households. Hence households do not have any incentive to conserve water as they would be paying the same amount whether or not they take steps to conserve. By this reasoning, even if we take what you have stated to be the conclusion, option (C) strengthens the conclusion.

My thoughts on the other options are given below:

(A) The Springhill authorities do a poor job of enforcing its water emergency laws and many people break the laws without incurring a penalty.  This is irrelevant to the conclusion which is about  preventing the emergencies  since it only talks about what happens  after  the emergency is declared. Eliminate.

(B) The town council of Springhill recently refused to raise the threshold.  This does not provide any further details about the threshold and talks about there being a status quo while the conclusion is about a hypothetical scenario. Does not impact the conclusion. Eliminate.

(C) The threshold is kept at a high enough level to exceed the water requirements of most households in Springhill.  Correct, as discussed above.

(D) The threshold is not as high in Springhill as it is in neighboring towns.  The conclusion is about conserving water  in Springhill . Comparison of its threshold with other towns without any details about the water situation in those towns does not impact our conclusion. Eliminate.

(E) The threshold remains at the predetermined level specified by law until a change is approved by the Springhill town council.  Same as (B).

Hope this helps.

shameekv1989 · Answer

Hello  svasan05

First I am considering a conclusion solely as "These emergencies could be avoided if Springhill would introduce permanent economic incentives for water conservation" and not that "SH discourages water conservation."

With this in mind, if we consider option C) i.e. "The threshold is kept at a high enough level to exceed the water requirements of most households in Springhill. "

This states that thresholds are at a level that people currently can fulfill their requirements and thus will be able to save/conserve water as well. If this is the case, then we don't need any further incentives for water conservation (and thus discouraging water conservation). As per the conclusion that I took into consideration, this would basically contradict that SH really needs to introduce incentives for water conservation in order to avoid emergencies. Since the threshold level is already at a high enough level that people can use.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

I accept your choice of conclusion - that is completely valid.

However, I am still unsure about how "people currently can fulfill their requirements and thus will be able to save/conserve water as well".

The "threshold", as per the stimulus, is simply a level of consumption beyond which a variable charge is levied depending on usage ("...each household pays a modest monthly flat fee for any amount of water below a certain usage threshold, and a substantial per-liter rate only after the threshold is reached"). I am unable to understand how this is connected to how much water is "conserved", which is affected solely by the actual amount of water used.

For eg; if a typical households consumes 3000 litres of water a month, option (C) states that the tariff structure in Springhill is such that the households would have to pay a fixed amount (say $ X) for any usage below, say, 5000 litres a month,  irrespective of how much water they consume below 5000 litres a month .

A variable rate (say $ y  per litre ) is levied  only for usage above this threshold  of 5000 litres a month.

So a household, currently using 3000 litres of water a month, has no incentive to reduce it to, say, 2500 litres a month, since they would continue to pay the fixed amount $ X for this reduced usage as well.

Please tell me if I have missed something.

shameekv1989 · Answer

svasan05  - Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I think, I was confusing it probably with another assumption. In the above case, if someone has a need of 3000 ltrs and if 5000 lts is a threshold, then he may very well save that extra 2000 ltrs for no extra money. That's flawed thinking right?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Shameek

That is not the correct logic since that would not count as "conservation".

Conservation, here, can be translated into "reduced usage" or "saving". Therefore, if a household currently uses 3000 litres, and they subsequently reduce it to 2500 litres, this reduction of 500 litres is what would be "conserved".

The amount by which a household misses the threshold would not count as water "conserved" since that water was not being used by the household in the first place.

Hope this clarifies.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The town of Springhill frequently must declare a water emergency, maki

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The town of Springhill frequently must declare a water emergency, maki

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards