PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 23
Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured(71 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- AThe cost of(32 more words not shown)
- BEven if the(18 more words not shown)
- CBecause the volume(30 more words not shown)
- DA weekly schedule(22 more words not shown)
- EBecause of the(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if people are already putting recyclable items in the trash because their recycling bins fill up?
The old program collects every other week. Imagine the bin is full after the first week, and another pickup is still a week away. Some people may throw the extra cans or cardboard into the trash rather than store them or make a separate trip to a recycling center. Weekly collection could keep those items in the recycling stream.
That challenges the editor's claim that the same total amount will simply be divided among more pickups. The amount people generate and the amount the city actually collects for recycling needn't be the same.
What we’re looking for
I can still see a concern about the city's plan: running trucks more often could cost more. But we're asked to weaken the editor's argument, and the editor's stated reason for rejecting the plan is that collected volume won't increase. I'd look for a reason the more convenient schedule could change what people actually put out.
Working the answers
- A
This compares trash collection with recycling collection. The dispute concerns the old recycling schedule versus the new one. Recycling could remain more expensive than trash collection while still becoming more cost effective than it was before.
- B
This gives us a reason to remain doubtful about the new program, not a reason to reject the editor's criticism. Even more recyclables might fail to make the program cost effective overall. It also doesn't show that the program cannot become more cost effective than the old one. Either way, it supplies no challenge to the editor's claim that the collected volume will stay the same.
- C
Less material at each pickup could mean a shorter individual stop, but there will be more pickups. C doesn't tell us the total time or cost over the year, and it doesn't challenge the editor's claim about the same annual volume. A shorter pickup is not by itself the improvement the city needs to establish.
- DCorrect
People find the weekly schedule substantially easier to follow. That gives us another reason collection could improve: people are more likely to put their bins out when they should. The city could collect recyclables it previously missed, rather than merely dividing an unchanged total among more trips. D doesn't prove the program will pay for itself, but it undermines the editor's assumption about how people will behave.
- E
Higher contractor charges reinforce the worry about the cost of more pickups. They don't undermine the editor's rejection of the city's claim. This answer also doesn't give us a reason to expect more recyclables to be collected.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.