Sunday Solid Waste (SSW) operates several waste transfer stations where trash and recyclables are collected from area residents before being...

GMAT Multi Source Reasoning : (MSR) Questions

Source: Mock

Multi Source Reasoning

Case Study

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

SSW

Table

New Law

Sunday Solid Waste (SSW) operates several waste transfer stations where trash and recyclables are collected from area residents before being transported to a landfill or recycling facility. This year (Year 1), residents are charged a flat fee ($3.50 for trash and $0.50 for recyclables) for each standard-size bag of waste that they bring to SSW, and SSW pays by the ton for the material to be taken to a landfill or recycling facility. On average, 85 bags of trash or recyclables will weigh approximately one ton. This year (Year 1), SSW is operating under a contract with a landfill that will close at the end of the year. Next year (Year 2), SSW will need to contract with a different landfill. The decreased competition among landfills is projected to result in SSW having higher trash disposal costs. The facility that processes recyclables charges a fee that fluctuates from year to year (and sometimes falls to zero), depending on the current market for recyclable materials.

Ques. 1/3

Which one of the following statements about SSW is most likely to be true, assuming all of the projections provided in the tabs are correct?

SSW will handle fewer bags of recyclables in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will charge a lower per-bag fee for garbage in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will pay more per ton to dispose of trash in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will operate a greater number of transfer stations in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will handle fewer combined tons of trash and recyclables in Year 2 than in Year 1.

Solution

OWNING THE DATASET

Understanding Source A: Text Source - SSW Operations Description

Information from Source A	Dataset Analysis
"Sunday Solid Waste (SSW) operates several waste transfer stations where trash and recyclables are collected from area residents before being transported to a landfill or recycling facility"	SSW acts as a middleman between residents and final disposal sites They handle both trash and recyclables at multiple locations Inference: SSW serves as an intermediary between residents and final disposal facilities
"residents are charged a flat fee ($\$3.50$ for trash and $\$0.50$ for recyclables) for each standard-size bag"	Trash bags cost 7 times more than recyclable bags Revenue comes from charging per bag Inference: SSW's revenue comes from per-bag fees, with trash bags generating 7x more revenue than recyclable bags
"SSW pays by the ton for the material to be taken to a landfill or recycling facility. On average, $85$ bags of trash or recyclables will weigh approximately one ton"	SSW collects money per bag but pays costs per ton The same weight ratio ($85$ bags = $1$ ton) applies to both trash and recyclables Inference: SSW's costs are weight-based while revenue is volume-based
"SSW is operating under a contract with a landfill that will close at the end of the year... decreased competition among landfills is projected to result in SSW having higher trash disposal costs"	Current landfill contract ends after Year 1 Fewer landfills means less competition and higher prices Inference: Trash disposal costs will increase in Year 2 due to decreased landfill competition
"The facility that processes recyclables charges a fee that fluctuates from year to year (and sometimes falls to zero)"	Recycling costs are variable and unpredictable Sometimes SSW doesn't pay anything for recycling disposal Inference: SSW sometimes pays nothing for recyclable disposal

Summary: SSW operates waste transfer stations that charge residents per bag ($\$3.50$ trash, $\$0.50$ recyclables) while paying disposal facilities per ton, with trash disposal costs expected to rise in Year 2.

Understanding Source B: Table with Accompanying Text

Information from Source B	Dataset Analysis
"weight, in tons, of the bags of trash and bags of recyclables that SSW projects to handle this year (Year 1), as well as the associated revenue and disposal costs"	This table shows projected (not actual) Year 1 figures Data covers SSW's entire Year 1 operations Inference: These are projected figures covering SSW's entire Year 1 operations
Trash: $2,060$ tons, $\$613,000$ revenue, $\$200,000$ disposal costs	Trash operations generate $\$413,000$ profit $(\$613,000 - \$200,000)$ This represents about $175,100$ bags $(2,060 \times 85 \text{ bags/ton})$ Inference: Trash operations are profitable with $\$413,000$ gross margin Linkage to Source A: The revenue of $\$613,000$ aligns with Source A's $\$3.50$ per bag fee $(175,100 \text{ bags} \times \$3.50 = \$612,850)$
Recyclables: $990$ tons, $\$42,300$ revenue, $\$47,600$ disposal costs	Recyclables lose money: $-\$5,300$ $(\$42,300 - \$47,600)$ This represents about $84,150$ bags $(990 \times 85 \text{ bags/ton})$ Inference: Recyclables operate at a loss of $\$5,300$ Linkage to Source A: The revenue of $\$42,300$ matches Source A's $\$0.50$ per bag fee $(84,150 \text{ bags} \times \$0.50 = \$42,075)$
Total: $3,050$ tons, $\$655,300$ revenue, $\$247,600$ disposal costs	Overall profit is $\$407,700$ $(\$655,300 - \$247,600)$ Trash represents $68\%$ of total weight $(2,060/3,050)$ Inference: Overall operation is profitable with trash subsidizing recyclable losses Linkage to Source A: The per-ton cost structure from Source A is reflected in these disposal costs

Summary: SSW's Year 1 projections show profitable trash operations ($\$413,000$ margin) offsetting losses from recyclables ($-\$5,300$), with the fee structure from Source A generating the revenues shown in this table.

Understanding Source C: Text Source - New Law Description

Information from Source C	Dataset Analysis
"a new law will take effect that requires transfer stations to accept all recyclables at no charge"	The $\$0.50$ recyclable fee will be eliminated All recyclable revenue disappears in Year 2 Inference: SSW must eliminate the $\$0.50$ recyclable bag fee in Year 2 Linkage to Source B: This eliminates the $\$42,300$ recyclable revenue shown in Source B
"The law is expected to increase the amount of recyclables that are separated out from trash"	More recyclables will likely come to SSW in Year 2 Free disposal encourages better separation Inference: Recyclable volumes will likely increase in Year 2 Linkage to Source B: The $990$ tons of recyclables will likely increase, but with zero revenue
"it may not be economically feasible to fully verify the contents of every bag brought to a transfer station"	SSW cannot check every bag Enforcement will be difficult Inference: SSW cannot inspect all bags for compliance Linkage to Source A: With $85$ bags per ton and thousands of tons handled, verification becomes practically impossible
"the new law could increase the amount of trash that is included in bags of recyclables"	People might put trash in recyclable bags to avoid the $\$3.50$ fee Contamination risk increases Inference: Some residents may exploit the free recyclable disposal Linkage to Sources A & B: The $\$3.50$ trash fee creates incentive to misuse free recyclable disposal, threatening the profitable trash operations shown in Source B

Summary: Year 2's new law eliminates recyclable fees (removing Source B's $\$42,300$ revenue) while potentially increasing recyclable volumes and contamination, compounding the financial pressures from Source A's rising trash disposal costs.

Overall Summary

SSW currently operates profitably by charging per-bag fees ($\$3.50$ trash, $\$0.50$ recyclables) while paying per-ton disposal costs
Trash operations subsidize recyclable losses in the current model
Year 2 brings a double financial challenge:
- Rising trash disposal costs due to reduced landfill competition
- Complete elimination of recyclable revenue due to new law requiring free recyclable acceptance
The new law creates operational risks through:
- Likely increased recyclable volumes
- Potential contamination from residents trying to avoid trash fees
These changes make SSW's current business model unsustainable

Question Analysis

The question asks which prediction about SSW's operations in Year 2 is most likely correct based on the information provided.

Must be about Year 2 operations
Must be 'most likely' to be true
Must assume all projections are correct

The answer type needed is a comparative evaluation of future predictions.

Connecting to Our Analysis

The analysis contains specific information about Year 2 changes including: new law eliminating recyclable fees, increased trash disposal costs, and expected increase in recyclable volumes. We can answer this question from the analysis alone since it contains all needed Year 2 change information.

Extracting Relevant Findings

We are evaluating each statement against Year 2 changes identified in the analysis. Current Year 1 operations include fees for both trash and recyclables, and we are identifying which Year 2 change is explicitly supported by the sources.

Individual Statement Evaluations

Statement 1 Evaluation

Statement: "SSW will handle fewer bags of recyclables in Year 2 than in Year 1."

In plain terms: Will SSW handle fewer bags of recyclables in Year 2?

The statement claims recyclable volume will decrease
The analysis states 'Recyclable volumes will likely increase in Year 2'
This is a direct contradiction - the analysis says increase while the statement says decrease
Conclusion: This statement is incorrect

Statement 2 Evaluation

Statement: "SSW will charge a lower per-bag fee for garbage in Year 2 than in Year 1."

In plain terms: Will SSW charge less for garbage bags in Year 2?

The statement claims garbage fees will decrease
The analysis mentions no changes to garbage fees, only that recyclable fees are eliminated
There is no evidence that supports garbage fee reduction
Conclusion: This statement is unsupported

Statement 3 Evaluation

Statement: "SSW will pay more per ton to dispose of trash in Year 2 than in Year 1."

In plain terms: Will SSW pay more per ton for trash disposal in Year 2?

The statement claims trash disposal costs will increase
The analysis explicitly states 'Trash disposal costs will increase in Year 2'
This shows perfect alignment - the analysis directly confirms this statement
Conclusion: This statement is correct

Statement 4 Evaluation

Statement: "SSW will operate a greater number of transfer stations in Year 2 than in Year 1."

No mention in analysis of station count changes
Conclusion: This statement is unsupported

Statement 5 Evaluation

Statement: "SSW will handle fewer combined tons of trash and recyclables in Year 2 than in Year 1."

Analysis indicates recyclables increase with no mention of trash decrease
Conclusion: This statement is unlikely

Systematic Checking

Checking remaining statements against analysis:

Statement 4 (more transfer stations): No mention in analysis of station count changes - UNSUPPORTED
Statement 5 (fewer total tons): Analysis indicates recyclables increase with no mention of trash decrease - UNLIKELY
Only Statement 3 (higher trash disposal costs) is explicitly confirmed in the analysis

Final Answer

SSW will pay more per ton to dispose of trash in Year 2 than in Year 1.

Answer Choices Explained

SSW will handle fewer bags of recyclables in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will charge a lower per-bag fee for garbage in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will pay more per ton to dispose of trash in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will operate a greater number of transfer stations in Year 2 than in Year 1.

SSW will handle fewer combined tons of trash and recyclables in Year 2 than in Year 1.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...

Information from Source B	Dataset Analysis
"weight, in tons, of the bags of trash and bags of recyclables that SSW projects to handle this year (Year 1), as well as the associated revenue and disposal costs"	This table shows projected (not actual) Year 1 figures Data covers SSW's entire Year 1 operations Inference: These are projected figures covering SSW's entire Year 1 operations
Trash: \(2,060\) tons, \(\$613,000\) revenue, \(\$200,000\) disposal costs	Trash operations generate \(\$413,000\) profit \((\$613,000 - \$200,000)\) This represents about \(175,100\) bags \((2,060 \times 85 \text{ bags/ton})\) Inference: Trash operations are profitable with \(\$413,000\) gross margin Linkage to Source A: The revenue of \(\$613,000\) aligns with Source A's \(\$3.50\) per bag fee \((175,100 \text{ bags} \times \$3.50 = \$612,850)\)
Recyclables: \(990\) tons, \(\$42,300\) revenue, \(\$47,600\) disposal costs	Recyclables lose money: \(-\$5,300\) \((\$42,300 - \$47,600)\) This represents about \(84,150\) bags \((990 \times 85 \text{ bags/ton})\) Inference: Recyclables operate at a loss of \(\$5,300\) Linkage to Source A: The revenue of \(\$42,300\) matches Source A's \(\$0.50\) per bag fee \((84,150 \text{ bags} \times \$0.50 = \$42,075)\)
Total: \(3,050\) tons, \(\$655,300\) revenue, \(\$247,600\) disposal costs	Overall profit is \(\$407,700\) \((\$655,300 - \$247,600)\) Trash represents \(68\%\) of total weight \((2,060/3,050)\) Inference: Overall operation is profitable with trash subsidizing recyclable losses Linkage to Source A: The per-ton cost structure from Source A is reflected in these disposal costs

Information from Source B	Dataset Analysis
"weight, in tons, of the bags of trash and bags of recyclables that SSW projects to handle this year (Year 1), as well as the associated revenue and disposal costs"	This table shows projected (not actual) Year 1 figures Data covers SSW's entire Year 1 operations Inference: These are projected figures covering SSW's entire Year 1 operations
Trash: \(2,060\) tons, \(\$613,000\) revenue, \(\$200,000\) disposal costs	Trash operations generate \(\$413,000\) profit \((\$613,000 - \$200,000)\) This represents about \(175,100\) bags \((2,060 \times 85 \text{ bags/ton})\) Inference: Trash operations are profitable with \(\$413,000\) gross margin Linkage to Source A: The revenue of \(\$613,000\) aligns with Source A's \(\$3.50\) per bag fee \((175,100 \text{ bags} \times \$3.50 = \$612,850)\)
Recyclables: \(990\) tons, \(\$42,300\) revenue, \(\$47,600\) disposal costs	Recyclables lose money: \(-\$5,300\) \((\$42,300 - \$47,600)\) This represents about \(84,150\) bags \((990 \times 85 \text{ bags/ton})\) Inference: Recyclables operate at a loss of \(\$5,300\) Linkage to Source A: The revenue of \(\$42,300\) matches Source A's \(\$0.50\) per bag fee \((84,150 \text{ bags} \times \$0.50 = \$42,075)\)
Total: \(3,050\) tons, \(\$655,300\) revenue, \(\$247,600\) disposal costs	Overall profit is \(\$407,700\) \((\$655,300 - \$247,600)\) Trash represents \(68\%\) of total weight \((2,060/3,050)\) Inference: Overall operation is profitable with trash subsidizing recyclable losses Linkage to Source A: The per-ton cost structure from Source A is reflected in these disposal costs

Information from Source A	Dataset Analysis
"Sunday Solid Waste (SSW) operates several waste transfer stations where trash and recyclables are collected from area residents before being transported to a landfill or recycling facility"	SSW acts as a middleman between residents and final disposal sites They handle both trash and recyclables at multiple locations Inference: SSW serves as an intermediary between residents and final disposal facilities
"residents are charged a flat fee (\(\$3.50\) for trash and \(\$0.50\) for recyclables) for each standard-size bag"	Trash bags cost 7 times more than recyclable bags Revenue comes from charging per bag Inference: SSW's revenue comes from per-bag fees, with trash bags generating 7x more revenue than recyclable bags
"SSW pays by the ton for the material to be taken to a landfill or recycling facility. On average, \(85\) bags of trash or recyclables will weigh approximately one ton"	SSW collects money per bag but pays costs per ton The same weight ratio (\(85\) bags = \(1\) ton) applies to both trash and recyclables Inference: SSW's costs are weight-based while revenue is volume-based
"SSW is operating under a contract with a landfill that will close at the end of the year... decreased competition among landfills is projected to result in SSW having higher trash disposal costs"	Current landfill contract ends after Year 1 Fewer landfills means less competition and higher prices Inference: Trash disposal costs will increase in Year 2 due to decreased landfill competition
"The facility that processes recyclables charges a fee that fluctuates from year to year (and sometimes falls to zero)"	Recycling costs are variable and unpredictable Sometimes SSW doesn't pay anything for recycling disposal Inference: SSW sometimes pays nothing for recyclable disposal

Information from Source C	Dataset Analysis
"a new law will take effect that requires transfer stations to accept all recyclables at no charge"	The \(\$0.50\) recyclable fee will be eliminated All recyclable revenue disappears in Year 2 Inference: SSW must eliminate the \(\$0.50\) recyclable bag fee in Year 2 Linkage to Source B: This eliminates the \(\$42,300\) recyclable revenue shown in Source B
"The law is expected to increase the amount of recyclables that are separated out from trash"	More recyclables will likely come to SSW in Year 2 Free disposal encourages better separation Inference: Recyclable volumes will likely increase in Year 2 Linkage to Source B: The \(990\) tons of recyclables will likely increase, but with zero revenue
"it may not be economically feasible to fully verify the contents of every bag brought to a transfer station"	SSW cannot check every bag Enforcement will be difficult Inference: SSW cannot inspect all bags for compliance Linkage to Source A: With \(85\) bags per ton and thousands of tons handled, verification becomes practically impossible
"the new law could increase the amount of trash that is included in bags of recyclables"	People might put trash in recyclable bags to avoid the \(\$3.50\) fee Contamination risk increases Inference: Some residents may exploit the free recyclable disposal Linkage to Sources A & B: The \(\$3.50\) trash fee creates incentive to misuse free recyclable disposal, threatening the profitable trash operations shown in Source B