beater wrote:The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmentally preferable alternative to the prevailing practices of incineration and of dumping in landfills. Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate. A state legislator proposes that communities should therefore be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?

A) Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizens participation ranging from 30% in some communities to 80% in others.

B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20% of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price.

C) Existing recycling programs have had recurrent difficulties finding purchasers for their materials usually because of quantities too small to permit cost effective pickup and transportation.

D) Some of the materials that can be recycled are the very materials that, when incinerated, produce the least pollution

E) Many of the materials that cannot be recycled are also difficult to incinerate.

El Cucu wrote:

beater wrote:The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmentally preferable alternative to the prevailing practices of incineration and of dumping in landfills. Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate. A state legislator proposes that communities should therefore be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?

A) Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizens participation ranging from 30% in some communities to 80% in others.

B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20% of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price.

C) Existing recycling programs have had recurrent difficulties finding purchasers for their materials usually because of quantities too small to permit cost effective pickup and transportation.

D) Some of the materials that can be recycled are the very materials that, when incinerated, produce the least pollution

E) Many of the materials that cannot be recycled are also difficult to incinerate.

Recycling is environmentally preferable + profitable so let's recycle...

A) hold
B) hold
C) out ,contradicts the info given
D) only some of the materials...besides if not recycled they produce pollution when incinerated (not matter if it is the least) This strenghts
E) strengenths not weakens

Between A and B.

A) Does not undermine the conclusion (why the fact of being voluntary would make the proposal less feasable?) Also strenghts the proposal as there are already 30 to 80% of citizens doing this)

B) Adds info regarding profitability. Statement says recycle is profitable and this answer says profitable to 20% of raw materials. So any more % more than that COULD be not profitable. This weakens the statement.

beater wrote:Could someone please explain as to why A is wrong.

I went ahead and assumed that citizen participation is necessary for the plan to succeed and that is clearly incorrect.

What is your reasoning for eliminating A?