Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con

Question

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminum cans are recycled. This is because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

Which of the following, if true, would help explain the results of the study?

A. Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.

B. The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.

C. Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.

D. Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.

E. There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.

GmatPrime · Answer

Aim: To find an explanation that resolves the paradox.

A. Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.
May be so but that doesn't resolve the  paradox- why other states are doing better ?

B. The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.
Similar to A- does  nothing to explain why other states (without the five-cent bottle deposit) are doing better.

C. Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.
 Opposite  of what we are looking for. According to option C, the five-cent program should have been more successful.

D. Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.
Sounds right. Now we know the incentive for going for the comprehensive program.  It is a smart financial decision. 
 Correct.

E. There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.
According to the argument,
'states without a bottle deposit had more success'
The argument is  not comparing the number of states . Rather, it is concerned about the success within the state versus success within other state/s.

Bunuel · Answer

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

This is a resolve the paradox question. In this question you are asked to explain why the states without a bottle deposit program had more success in implementing a comprehensive recycling program. This is surprising because a bottle deposit program provides a strong incentive for people to recycle plastic, glass, and aluminum beverage containers. Choice D is the correct answer. Remember, you are trying to explain why states without a bottle deposit program had more “success in implementing a comprehensive recycling program.” Choice D indicates that Aluminum cans will “pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program” when they are included, rather than being taken out of the recycling stream and into a separate beverage bottle deposit program; this points to greater success in implementing a comprehensive program.

Choice A is interesting and tempting. If the bottle deposit programs are not convenient and not popular then this would impact people’s motivation. However, even if unpopular these laws provide a “strong incentive for people to recycle these containers. So this does not explain why states without this program would have more success. Choice B cannot be the answer because you cannot explain why one thing is more successful simply by pointing to something that the two programs have in common. If I want to explain why you are more successful on the GMAT than I am I cannot say that we each get 75 minutes for the Verbal section. Choice C points in the wrong direction. It indicates a reason why the states with the bottle deposit program would be more successful. Choice E indicates that there are more states with bottle deposit programs but this does not tell us why these states are not as successful.

abhishekmayank · Answer

The option D is not clear to me in its meaning :

D. Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately,  they pay for costs  of the entire comprehensive recycling program.

Here the highlighted part is confusing as to who is paying to whom ? If the recycling of Aluminum cans is paying the cost of entire comprehensive recycling program to the the authority that is doing the recycling then there is no incentive for the depositors of the Aluminium can. In this case, it doesn't resolve the paradox.

randommbaguy · Answer

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma  Could you please help me out with this one?

As per my understanding of the passage, it seemed to me that since the bottle deposit program was created to provide an incentive to people to recycle, the success of the program depends on the participation of the public. I went with option B, because unlike states where people required a financial incentive to participate in a recycling program (which explains only growth in recycling in bottles) in other states people did not need such an incentive to recycle and were generally more motivated to recycle and that explains why the comprehensive program is successful in such states.

I am assuming level of motivation remains the same for people in their respective states. A person in state A does not usually have any motivation to recycle but a person in state B has a much higher level of motivation to recycle. The financial incentive in state A pushes his motivation level to recycle but the person in state B is going to recycle whatever program is implemented because he is not looking for a financial incentive.

Please let me know what I am missing. Thank you.

Bambi2021 · Answer

I have the same concern. This is exceptionally muddy.

What is the inference we have to draw here? If the recycled cans help pay for the costs of the program, then does this make it possible for the state to allocate even more resources to the programs, and therefore they are more successful? Or do people reason like this: "if we take the cans to the recycle stations, the state will have more money to put on more important stuff like infrastructure".

With tons of doubt I chose C here: "Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect."

I dont get how this strengthens the opposite of what we are looking for. If individuals have a greater incentive to actively recycle beverage cans, then I thought thay they might care a lot less about recycling other materials.

Makesh89 · Answer

A, B, C and E were so easy to eliminate coz they don't really relate the issues at hand. Was only left with option D.

Posted from my mobile device

AnuK2222 · Answer

I think option D is correct, this was tricky!
the two elements of the paradox are that bottle deposit programs are incentivize recycling and other one is that states with comprehensive recycling program without bottle deposit, but are more successful
we don't quite what the definition of success is but it probably has something to with the environmental/financial aspect
The correct answer will help explain what makes comprehensive recycling more successful - thinking logically this is either due to money or overall compliance with program

A. Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures X
irrelevant, this only refers to disadv of bottle deposit, what about comprehensive recycling?

B. The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used. X
if motivation is same then this strengthens the paradox does not resolve it

C. Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect. X
this goes against the first element of paradox and does not resolve it

D. Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program. CORRECT
success=$$$ if the comprehensive program is self sufficient then this explains it success over the bottle program

E. There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs. X
irrelevant! its not about no. of states

hope this helps

samarpan.g28 · Answer

We need to figure out why other states are not implementing the five-cent bottle deposits.

A. Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures. -   But why is it unpopular?  
 B. The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used. -   This completely invalidates what we are looking for. 
 C. Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect. -   But we are looking for the motivation why some states are ignoring the 'greater financial incentive' as mentioned in this option. 
 D. Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program. -   okay, financial benefits received. This can be a valid reason. 
 E. There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs. -  B   ut we are concerned about those states where bottle-deposit program is not applied.

Option (D) is correct.

Dev_Shah · Answer

I rejected D since it isn't mentioned whether "success" of program is measured by financial cost for the state, it could be defined as most material collected or increasing environmental protection irrespective of the cost of the program. Am I missing something?  Bunuel

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hi Dev_Shah

From the premise  "Success in implementing"  can mean the programs are more widespread, more effective at overall recycling rates, or more financially sustainable, but the passage doesn’t strictly define it. Even if  “success”  is measured by total tons recycled across all materials or percentage of households served, the funding mechanism matters, it’s not just about  "cost for the state"  but about economic sustainability of the whole system. So  (D)  works.

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con

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

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con

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