Brochure : Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Brochure : Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use. A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.

Criticism : For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.

Which of the following, if true, provides the best basis for a rebuttal of the criticism?

Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.

A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.

A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.

It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.

Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Help conserve our city's water supply. By converting the landscaping in your yard to a water-conserving landscape, you can greatly reduce your outdoor water use.	What it says: Converting to water-conserving landscaping greatly cuts outdoor water use and helps the city save water What it does: Sets up the main recommendation with an environmental benefit What it is: Brochure's primary recommendation Visualization: Regular landscaping uses $\mathrm{100\ gallons/week}$ → Water-conserving landscaping uses $\mathrm{20\ gallons/week}$ ($\mathrm{5x\ reduction}$)
A water-conserving landscape is natural and attractive, and it also saves you money.	What it says: Water-conserving landscapes look good and provide financial savings to homeowners What it does: Adds aesthetic and personal financial benefits to support the recommendation What it is: Brochure's supporting claims Visualization: Homeowner benefits: Natural look + Attractive appearance + Money savings = Triple advantage
For most people with yards, the savings from converting to a water-conserving landscape cannot justify the expense of new landscaping, since typically the conversion would save less than twenty dollars on a homeowner's yearly water bills.	What it says: Most homeowners won't save enough money ($\mathrm{under\ \$20/year}$) to make the conversion cost worthwhile What it does: Directly challenges the brochure's money-saving claim with specific financial data What it is: Critic's cost-benefit objection Visualization: Conversion cost: $\mathrm{\$2,000\ vs\ Annual\ savings:\ \$15}$ → Takes $\mathrm{133+\ years}$ to break even

Argument Flow:

We have two opposing positions here. The brochure makes a recommendation (convert to water-conserving landscaping) and supports it with three benefits: environmental help, aesthetic appeal, and money savings. The criticism then directly attacks one of those benefits by showing the math doesn't work out - the financial savings are too small compared to the conversion costs.

Main Conclusion:

The criticism concludes that for most homeowners, converting to water-conserving landscaping isn't financially justified because the yearly savings (under $\mathrm{\$20}$) are too small compared to the conversion expenses.

Logical Structure:

The criticism uses a simple cost-benefit analysis to counter the brochure's claim. It accepts the brochure's premise that there are savings, but argues those savings ($\mathrm{\$20/year}$) are insufficient when weighed against the upfront conversion costs, making the financial argument weak.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that would support the brochure's position and counter the criticism's claim that the financial savings don't justify the conversion costs.

Precision of Claims

The criticism makes a specific quantitative claim (less than $\mathrm{\$20}$ yearly savings) and a cost-benefit judgment (savings cannot justify expense). The brochure claims money savings but doesn't specify amounts or timeframes.

Strategy

Since the criticism attacks the cost-benefit analysis by saying the small annual savings don't justify the conversion expense, we need to find scenarios that either increase the financial benefits or reduce the costs of conversion, making the math work out better for homeowners.

Answer Choices Explained

Even homeowners whose yards do not have water-conserving landscapes can conserve water by installing water-saving devices in their homes.

This doesn't rebut the criticism at all - it just offers an alternative water conservation method. The criticism specifically argues that converting landscaping isn't cost-effective, and this choice doesn't address that financial concern. If anything, it might support the criticism by suggesting there are cheaper alternatives to landscape conversion.

A conventional landscape generally requires a much greater expenditure on fertilizer and herbicide than does a water-conserving landscape.

This provides an excellent rebuttal because it reveals the criticism's financial analysis is incomplete. The criticism only considers water bill savings versus conversion costs, but this choice shows there are additional ongoing savings from reduced chemical purchases. When we add these maintenance cost savings to the water savings, the total financial benefit could easily justify the conversion expense, even if water savings alone seem small.

A significant proportion of the residents of the city live in buildings that do not have yards.

This is irrelevant to the criticism. We're specifically discussing people with yards who might convert their landscaping. The fact that some residents don't have yards doesn't change the cost-benefit analysis for those who do have yards.

It costs no more to put in water-conserving landscaping than it does to put in conventional landscaping.

This helps but doesn't fully rebut the criticism. The issue isn't comparing costs between landscape types for new installation - it's about whether converting existing conventional landscaping is worth the expense. Even if both types cost the same for new installation, conversion still requires upfront costs that the criticism claims aren't justified by the savings.

Some homeowners use more water to maintain their yards than they use for all other purposes combined.

While this shows potential for significant water savings, it doesn't directly address the financial criticism. The criticism accepts that there are water savings but argues they're financially insufficient (under $20/year). This choice doesn't change the dollar amounts involved in the cost-benefit calculation.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...