Weaken questions almost always get broken by asking “how is it possible that the Conclusion is false while the facts remain true?”
This is no exception. There’s a problem if you dump shit on the curb. Enough said.
To reduce waste of raw materials, the government of Sperland is considering requiring household appliances to be broken down for salvage when discarded. To cover the cost of salvage, the government is planning to charge a fee, which would be imposed when the appliance is first sold. Imposing the fee at the time of salvage would reduce waste more effectively, however, because consumers tend to keep old appliances longer if they are faced with a fee for discarding them.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.
(B) The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.
(C) For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.
(D) People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.
(E) Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.
What do you think about the government of Sperland? The place doesn’t even exist.
FREE Top Three 705+ Arithmetic Shortcuts (8-video course):
