Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
- Jun 06
08:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations! - Jun 07
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
In this GMAT experience talk show, we talk to Tavishi, a young MBA aspirant from India who recently scored 725 in her latest GMAT Focus exam. It’s a 99.9 percentile score on the new GMAT Focus edition and she achieved this feat in her first GMAT attempt. - Jun 08
05:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
The Focus Edition allows barely 2 minutes per question. Hence, rereading portions of passages is not an option. Learn our Involved and Evolved reading strategy, the most efficacious solution to time saving on RC and score high on GMAT Verbal! - Jun 08
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test. - Jun 11
05:30 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight fair, the biggest MBA fair of the year. You will have a chance to hear Admissions directors from almost every Top 20 program speak, network with peers, and more.
Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Posts: 148
Given Kudos: 63
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea
[#permalink]
31 May 2022, 09:57
Hi AndrewN
Everyone seems to have eliminated E very easily. I thought of it like, if there has to be some separation done of glass bottles before recycling them, maybe that is the reason they did not end up in the garbage and that would explain the decreasing weight percentage of the glass in garbage. Where did I go wrong ?
Everyone seems to have eliminated E very easily. I thought of it like, if there has to be some separation done of glass bottles before recycling them, maybe that is the reason they did not end up in the garbage and that would explain the decreasing weight percentage of the glass in garbage. Where did I go wrong ?
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea
[#permalink]
31 May 2022, 12:58
Expert Reply
Namangupta1997 wrote:
Hi AndrewN
Everyone seems to have eliminated E very easily. I thought of it like, if there has to be some separation done of glass bottles before recycling them, maybe that is the reason they did not end up in the garbage and that would explain the decreasing weight percentage of the glass in garbage. Where did I go wrong ?
Everyone seems to have eliminated E very easily. I thought of it like, if there has to be some separation done of glass bottles before recycling them, maybe that is the reason they did not end up in the garbage and that would explain the decreasing weight percentage of the glass in garbage. Where did I go wrong ?
You went wrong, Namangupta1997, in employing what I call one-step-removed reasoning, perhaps to justify an answer you wanted to be correct. The two facts that need reconciling are as follows:
1) Aluminum was recycled more than glass
2) In household garbage, the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans
We want to find a new piece of information that logically explains the discrepancy, since we would expect the more recycled aluminum cans to contribute less weight than before to household garbage. Consider how answer choice (E) would fit in:
Quote:
(E) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas the aluminum cans required no sorting.
This might explain why people did not want to recycle glass bottles in certain areas—it was inconvenient—but it would not explain why they did not simply throw such waste into the garbage, a more convenient place to put it. The paradox remains. Now, consider answer choice (C):
Quote:
(C) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
If there were many fewer glass bottles produced, then it makes sense that fewer of them ended up in household garbage, even if glass recycling was not as widely practiced as aluminum recycling. Notice that 2) above is a logical consequence of this newly introduced information, not a stretch by any means. Where you find less friction, you tend to find correct answers.
Perhaps the question makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask.
- Andrew
Re: From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decrea
[#permalink]
30 Apr 2023, 06:05
The passage states that from 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a decreasing percentage of total household garbage in the United States, with the weight of glass bottles declining by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans. The passage also notes that the increasingly widespread recycling of aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. To account for this finding, we need to identify the option that provides a plausible explanation for why the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
Option (B) suggests that a significant fraction of recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages. This information is relevant because it suggests that the declining weight of glass bottles in household garbage may be due to factors other than the declining use of glass beverage containers. If a significant fraction of recycled glass bottles contained non-beverage products, then the weight of glass bottles in household garbage would decline more rapidly than the weight of aluminum cans even if the use of glass beverage containers remained relatively constant.
Option (A) suggests that glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size. This information is not relevant to the finding that the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
Option (C) suggests that manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers. This information may explain why the weight of glass bottles declined, but it does not explain why the weight of aluminum cans declined less rapidly than the weight of glass bottles.
Option (D) suggests that the total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans. This information contradicts the finding in the passage that the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans. Therefore, this option is not relevant.
Option (E) suggests that glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas aluminum cans required no sorting. This information is not directly relevant to the finding that the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
Therefore, the option that most helps to account for the finding is (B). The fact that a significant fraction of recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages suggests that factors other than the declining use of glass beverage containers may have contributed to the decline in the weight of glass bottles in household garbage.
Option (B) suggests that a significant fraction of recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages. This information is relevant because it suggests that the declining weight of glass bottles in household garbage may be due to factors other than the declining use of glass beverage containers. If a significant fraction of recycled glass bottles contained non-beverage products, then the weight of glass bottles in household garbage would decline more rapidly than the weight of aluminum cans even if the use of glass beverage containers remained relatively constant.
Option (A) suggests that glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size. This information is not relevant to the finding that the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
Option (C) suggests that manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers. This information may explain why the weight of glass bottles declined, but it does not explain why the weight of aluminum cans declined less rapidly than the weight of glass bottles.
Option (D) suggests that the total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans. This information contradicts the finding in the passage that the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans. Therefore, this option is not relevant.
Option (E) suggests that glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas aluminum cans required no sorting. This information is not directly relevant to the finding that the weight of glass bottles declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
Therefore, the option that most helps to account for the finding is (B). The fact that a significant fraction of recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages suggests that factors other than the declining use of glass beverage containers may have contributed to the decline in the weight of glass bottles in household garbage.