BEVERAGE CONTAINERS

this question is poorly written. there is NO WAY it would be acceptable on the test.

according to the source, it's supposed to be (a); see here
https://bit.ly/39dOAp

see the next post for criticism of the answers.

if this were the real gmat, then NONE of the answers would be remotely good enough. here's why.
(remember, on the real test, the answers to questions like this are usually statements that are almost guaranteed. they would NEVER admit a problem with serious doubts in the answers.)

A. The number of new beverage containers not made of recycled
materials has decreased.

doesn't have to be true. it's possible that the numbers of BOTH kinds of containers - recycled and non-recycled - have gone up. furthermore, we don't know anything about non-recycled containers except about those made from trees, which certainly isn't all of them.

the funny thing is that even the source itself admits that there are problems with this answer! (see the link above)
heh.

B. More beverage containers have been recycled for producing
new beverage containers than have not been recycled for this
purpose.

there is nothing in the entire passage to support a comparison between these two quantities. either one could outnumber the other; we have no idea.

C. Recycled beverage containers have been used only for making
new beverage containers.

the "only" makes this choice ridiculous.

D. The number of beverage containers made of tree materials has
decreased.

my primary issue with this choice is that it doesn't say NEW beverage containers. if you count both kinds - the new and the used - then it's very likely that the number is increasing.

furthermore, EVEN IF WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT NEW CONTAINERS, the passage just talks about the number of trees - i.e., the TOTAL QUANTITY of material.
even if less material is used, that doesn't mean that the NUMBER OF CONTAINERS is lower! the containers could be smaller or thinner (as has been happening with, say, water bottles these days), enabling a smaller # of trees to make a greater number of containers.

E. The number of used beverage containers not being recycled has
decreased

not necessarily.
the # of containers being recycled has gone up, but this doesn't follow.
if there has been an increase in the total number of containers (which is quite reasonable, given increased demand), then it's definitely possible for BOTH the number of containers recycled and the number of containers NOT recycled to have gone up.

--