PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 10
It is wrong to waste our natural resources,(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AAll of the(9 more words not shown)
- BBy recycling more(8 more words not shown)
- CThe most effective(8 more words not shown)
- DIf the city(16 more words not shown)
- EIf the city(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Burning the trash and recycling it aren't the same use of resources. The author says burning huge amounts is wasteful and recycling wastes fewer resources, then objects to an incinerator because it would reduce recycling.
I notice a wording question: the opening mentions natural resources, while the later statements just say resources. If we were evaluating the recommendation, I might ask exactly what resources the author has in mind. But the question asks what follows from the statements, so we should work with what they explicitly give us rather than insist on resolving every possible objection first.
What we’re looking for
My first thought is that some trash would be diverted from recycling to incineration. The passage doesn't spell out the complete disposal process, though, so I don't want to turn that thought into a stronger claim than the wording supports. Let's check the choices against the stated links between recycling, burning large amounts of trash, and waste.
Working the answers
- A
All is too much. Trash that isn't recycled could go to a landfill, or someone could litter. We aren't told that every piece goes into an incinerator. Reduced recycling doesn't establish the destination of all the city's unrecycled trash.
- B
Fewer resources wasted doesn't mean no resources wasted. Recycling more trash could reduce one kind of waste while waste continued elsewhere. The passage supplies a reason to prefer recycling on this measure, not a promise that recycling eliminates every way the city could waste resources.
- C
A useful way to conserve resources needn't be the most effective way. We haven't compared recycling with every alternative. Perhaps avoiding unnecessary use of materials would save even more; that's a possibility the passage hasn't settled. C adds a ranking that the author never provides.
- DCorrect
The passage directly says burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is a waste of resources. So the city cannot both avoid wasting resources and do that. If it does the wasteful thing described, it hasn't avoided waste.
D keeps the relevant limit: huge amounts of trash. We don't need to claim that burning any tiny amount has the same consequence. Nor does D promise that avoiding this activity solves every resource problem. It identifies one thing the city cannot do if it is to avoid waste.
- E
Avoiding one source of waste doesn't eliminate every source. The city might avoid burning trash but still waste materials by needlessly cutting down trees, for example. The passage hasn't ruled that out.
Compare this with D. D says avoiding waste requires avoiding a particular wasteful activity. E says avoiding that activity guarantees no waste at all. That extra guarantee is what we can't support.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.