Question

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 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.

Answer 1

Answer:

The correct answer is A.

Explanation:

According to the previous argument, imposing the rate at the time of recovery would reduce waste more effectively, as consumers tend to keep old appliances for longer if they face a fee for disposal. So, what Sperland would be causing is for consumers to look for different alternatives to avoid incurring such expenses.