Critical Reasoning

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS AN ASSUMPTION MADE IN DRAWING THE CONCLUSION ABOVE?

A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
D) The beauty of the county parkland is an important issue for most of the county's residents.
E) Landfills outside the county's borders could be used as dumping sites for the county's trash.

[spoiler]I am really confused with how C is NOT out of scope. The argument focuses on 'trash collection by country' - no where it is mentioned any other mode of trash collection and landfilling. Given the collection only by country, how can ILLEGAL DUMPING become a right choice in C. Is C correct because C is the best available option? [/spoiler] Could any one suggest how my reasoning is flawed.

[spoiler]Secondly, I think more than Illegal dumping by residents, a better option would be 'it is feasible for residents to reduce their trash'. If it is not feasible then charge WILL NOT protect parkland [/spoiler] Do you disagree?

Can you also explain what exactly B intends to say.

A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. Clearly irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about products that create trash
B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about purchsing power of the households
C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. most logical assumption, if this is not assumed, no point considering the charge because every household will start dumping the trash illegaly and the plan to save parklands will fail
D) The beauty of the county parkland is an important issue for most of the county's residents.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about beauty of the parklands

E) Landfills outside the county's borders could be used as dumping sites for the county's trash. .this can not be the assumption

Neo Anderson wrote:A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. Clearly irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about products that create trash
B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about purchsing power of the households
C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. most logical assumption, if this is not assumed, no point considering the charge because every household will start dumping the trash illegaly and the plan to save parklands will fail
D) The beauty of the county parkland is an important issue for most of the county's residents.Again irrelevant, as the argument never discusses anything about beauty of the parklands

E) Landfills outside the county's borders could be used as dumping sites for the county's trash. .this can not be the assumption

Hi,

Thanks. I also feels C is the best option available. However, the choice is confusing - how C is NOT out of scope. The argument focuses on 'trash collection by country' - no where it is mentioned any other mode of trash collection and landfilling. Given the collection only by country, how can ILLEGAL DUMPING become a right choice in C. Is C correct because C is the best available option? Could any one suggest how my reasoning is flawed.

Secondly, I think more than Illegal dumping by residents, a better option would be 'it is feasible for residents to reduce their trash'. If it is not feasible then charge WILL NOT protect parkland Do you disagree?

well a defender answer choice here.Hence external element as mentioned in C is used.
Negating C, the argument crashes.

C it is.

dear experts,
thanks for your patient to my question.

I am a little confused about this statement's conclusion
1/ this conclusion includes two events ?

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland

because I figure out there is a colon btw last 2 sentences, generally, colon means parallelism, so i think there are two events in conclusion , reduce trash and protect remaining parkland





2/ does charge cause reduce and cause protect parkland
or
charge causes reduce, then reduce causes protect parkland

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland

here is a word "therefore" implying a conclusion, charge therefore protect parkland,
reading it some times, i feel charge is not the direct cause which causes protect parkland, but i am not sure.

please help to clarify.

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

zoe wrote:dear experts,
thanks for your patient to my question.

I am a little confused about this statement's conclusion
1/ this conclusion includes two events ?

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland

because I figure out there is a colon btw last 2 sentences, generally, colon means parallelism, so i think there are two events in conclusion , reduce trash and protect remaining parkland





2/ does charge cause reduce and cause protect parkland
or
charge causes reduce, then reduce causes protect parkland

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create ; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland

here is a word "therefore" implying a conclusion, charge therefore protect parkland,
reading it some times, i feel charge is not the direct cause which causes protect parkland, but i am not sure.

please help to clarify.

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

Hi Zoe,

Let us try to dissect the question stem here:

Premise 1: If country collects residential trash at current levels - landfills will overflow - parkland will have to be used to dump trash to create more space (Implication: Trash can be piled either at landfills or parklands. Once landfills have been completely filled, parkland will have to be utilized to pile the trash)
Premise 2: Charging each resident for each pound of trash will make residents reduce the amount of trash they put out for their household
Conclusion: This charge will reduce the rate of residential trash being collected - this implies that the landfills will continue to be sufficient enough to pile all trash - thus, the parkland will not need to be used to pile that trash

I hope this clarifies as it is in some ways a chain reaction. Now, moving on to the options:

A. The question does not mention any relationship of number of products bought to the amount of residential trash put out. INCORRECT.
B. The question stem does not mention any concern with the purchasing power of the residents and any linkage it might have to the charge being proposed. INCORRECT.
C. As discussed, the conclusion mainly hovers around the protection of park land. The idea is that if the residential trash levels are reduced, the accumulated residential trash can be limited to the landfills and the parkland will not have to be utilized for the trash. But, if the charge induces residents to illegally start dumping their trash in parklands (to avoid paying the per pound charge for the residential trash) then it defeats the purpose of not having to use the parkland for piling residential trash. CORRECT.
D. The question stem doesn't talk about whether the residents are in agreement or whether the popularity of the decision is important at all. INCORRECT.
E. This assumption has clearly not been made as the per pound charge is the only way the author seems to be proposing to prevent the residential trash from piling in parklands. If this premise was available to the author, then the charge might even not have been proposed as the main idea is to protect parkland by reducing trash. INCORRECT.

Hence, the correct option is C.