Critical Reasoning

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.

B

I feel C because if we dont find any purchaser of recyclable product. This would negate the advantages mentioned in the favor of recycling program.

B would be my answer choice
Here is why:
D and E are quiet irrelevant
C shows that it is hard but stil PROFITABLE! and since the program will be implemented on a large scale, the small scale problems would disappear.
We are left with A and B
B basically is telling us that the rest 80% of resources cannot be recycled in a profitable way. Hence it is weakening the proposal.
OA please.

I am not sure of C...
Consider this: If the current levels of recycling were neligiable, then after 5 years 50% of the solid waste would be recycled. In all it would produce a higher quantity which might be cost effectively transported.
IMO: D calls for the question of recycling itself..

Can someone provide a better explaination to this question?

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.

I also feel B. Earlier I overlooked 50%

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.

I think, you are right on target.
I have little doubt; it would be great if you can clarify.

B says as of now only 20% IS profitable as of now---Agreed
How do we know that after their efforts, 5 years down the line, it could not be profitable by 50% ?

I think, you are right on target.
I have little doubt; it would be great if you can clarify.

B says as of now only 20% IS profitable as of now---Agreed
How do we know that after their efforts, 5 years down the line, it could not be profitable by 50% ?[/quote]

Weaken does not mean 100% sure that the thing won't happen. It is enough to have doubts that the thing will happen. So if today the raw material procesed is only 20% profitable we can have serious doubts to take it to 50% and still be profitable. I.e no matter how much raw material we have only 20% is profitalbe so 1year 2yera 100yrs is the same unless we are told that a new condition on the profitability could be improved with the years, which is not the case

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?

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?

The fact that citizen participation has been voluntary does not undermine the fact that it could be obligatory. I would say the contrary. If a good percentage of the citizens already accepts recycling what change can produce the law requiring the citiznes to do what they have been doing?

Cannot decide between A and C. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please