kevincanspain wrote:

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:

ssgmatter wrote:Guys can anyone please help me understand the logic on this one...I am really having a tough time with this CR

Last year all refuse collected by Shelbyville city services was incinerated. This
incineration generated a large quantity of residue ash. In order to reduce the amount
of residue ash Shelbyville generates this year to half of last year's total, the city has
revamped its collection program. This year city services will separate for recycling
enough refuse to reduce the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated to half
of last year's number.
Which of the following is required for the revamped collection program to achieve its
aim?
A. This year, no materials that city services could separate for recycling will be
incinerated.
B. Separating recyclable materials from materials to be incinerated will cost
Shelbyville less than half what it cost last year to dispose of the residue ash.
C. Refuse collected by city services will contain a larger proportion of recyclable
materials this year than it did last year.
D. The refuse incinerated this year will generate no more residue
ash per truckload incinerated than did the refuse incinerated last year.
E. The total quantity of refuse collected by Shelbyville city services this year will be
no greater than that collected last year.

C need not be true for the aim to be achieved. If the vast majority of last year's trash was recyclable, it is possible for the program to achieve its aim even if this year's refuse contained a smaller proportion of recyclable materials that last year's.

When you see such a plan, do not accept the assumption that half the trash should generate half the ash!

Teenagers usually wreck havoc in our city during the summer months: vandalism, shoplifting, and drag races on city streets have long been common in the 8 weeks between school years. We have organized free summer camps in a remote part of the state, camps for which half of our teenagers have signed up. Thus, we can expect that such crimes will be half as common as they were last summer.

What objections can you raise to this above argument?

hi, thank you for your quick reply, i really appreciate that.
all i understand about the argument above is that the city want to reduce the number of damage the teen made for the city by offering a free summer camps for teen in the city.
one question existing in my mind is whether half of the teens who signed up are the ones wrecking havoc in the city??maybe no or maybe in the group of signed up students, there are only a small number of students who usually wreck the city... so the aim for reducing 1/2 the crimes is maybe impossible???
CR is really complicating.... the more i study, the more i am stagnant! maybe its lack of english skill

That's a good objection, and it's analgous to the one we can raise concerning the recycling plan