Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminum cans are recycled. This is because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

Which of the following, if true, would help explain the results of the study?

A)Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.

B)The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.

C)Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.

D)Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.

E)There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.

my concern: the argument is talking about the success of the implementation of the program. i feel that success of this implementation would means as how much these respective plans were able to induce people to participate in the program. how can D possibly answer this? d is talking of the economics of the plan when in fact we should be talking as how "this comprehensive plan" was more able to induce people to participate in "return of cans"