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?


Increasing the cost of disposing of an appliance properly increases the incentive to dispose of it improperly.

The fee provides manufacturers with no incentive to produce appliances that are more durable.

For people who have bought new appliances recently, the salvage fee would not need to be paid for a number of years.

People who sell their used, working appliances to others would not need to pay the salvage fee.

Many nonfunctioning appliances that are currently discarded could be repaired at relatively little expense.

加入错题本 分享
纠错
考题讲解

情景：为了减少浪费，政府决定要求家用电器在扔掉时被拆碎。为了节约成本，政府决定征收一个费用。由于如果顾客们被征收费用的话，他们会把老电器保留更长的时间，所以这个计划将会减少废料。

推理：由于推理文段的整个结论是方案的目标，所以本题为方案推理。

本题的推理结构为：
目标：为了减少废料
方案：征收一个费用

选题方式：答案选项一定和方案的内容相关。

选项分析：

A选项：Correct. 增加扔掉家用电器的费用上升了大家非法丢弃家用电器的可能。若本选项成立，则征收费用可能反而增加了废料。属于CQ1：方案的可行性问题。

B选项：这个费用没给制造商任何去做一个更耐用的家用电器的激励。无论这个费用是否激励了制造商们去制造一个更耐用的机器，其均可以达到减少废料的目的。

C选项：对于那些新买了家用电器的人们来说，这个费用在近几年都不需要花费。这个选项没有任何意义，因为若机器是新买的，那购买者们必然在近几年都不需要更换，自然没有费用。

D选项：那些卖自己用过的家用电器的人们不需要交这个费用。本选项反而使得方案更加可行，因为大家会因为不交这个钱而进行二手交易，从而减少了废料。

E选项：很多不能工作的家用电器都是可以以一个很小的成本修好的。本选项讨论的是旧家用电器的性质，不能评估方案。

展开显示

登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论

查看全部40条讨论
OG2016-CR
考点