Q23 - Editor: The city's previous recycling program

[haeminb]

I picked C because I thought that if under the new program recyclables pickup take less time, the new program might be more cost effective. Is answer choice D correct because we are to assume that if recyclables pickup becomes easier, there will be greater volume of recyclables collected per year? But can't I also make an argument that regardless of whether something becomes easier or not, the total volume of recyclables collected will remain the same (and therefore the new program is NOT more cost effective)? I feel like I am missing something here... please help!

[maryadkins]

Good question. Your reasoning is correct for (D), but agreed this is a tricky one.

So the reasoning in this argument is:

P: new program will just spread them out thinner

C: city's new program where it picks up recycling weekly instead of every other week is not going to be more cost-effective

We want to weaken the argument, so the first question is: what is being assumed? Maybe there's

(A) doesn't weaken. If recycling is cheaper than disposing trash already and will continue to be, how would that weaken?

(B) "might not be?" Psshh, we can do better than this wimpy weakener.

(C) looks pretty good. So if it takes less time to pick up, that seems like it may save on costs. But they're also picking up twice as often. So does the faster time outweigh the cost of double pick ups? Unclear...let's look for a better one but keep this for now...

(D) looks good, actually. Because if it's SUBSTANTIALLY easier for people to follow, they're going to cooperate with the pick up program more. And that means more recycling.

(E) strengthens the argument.

Basically (D) is a stronger weakener than (C) because under (C) we still don't know what the cost will be. (D) gets to the heart of the argument buy heavily suggesting that people will do a better job recycling under the new program.

[seychelles1718]

What is the conclusion of the argument? When the author says "This is absurd," what does "this" refer to? Does it refer to the city's claim that the program is more cost-effective or rather the support given for that claim (more revenue from selling more recyclables)?
Also, is the statement "people will put out the same volume of recyclables" an intermediate conclusion supported by the evidence that recyclables will just be spread over more # of pickups?
So ultimately, is this Q asking us to assess the gap between the intermediate conclusion and the minor premise?
Thank you so much!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

I would interpret "But this is absurd" as
"This argument/reasoning is absurd".

The author clearly disagrees with this argument's assumption that there will be a greater volume of recyclables collected.

So she's not arguing against any of the specific claims made by the city, but we only learn that by seeing what's said in the final sentence.

From the "But this is absurd", all we know is that the author is reacting to the previous sentence. It could be reacting to the conclusion, the premises, the assumption.

We couldn't call "ppl will put out the same volume" an intermediate conclusion, because the author didn't provide any supporting reason for that claim.

The nature of your question, "So, ultimately, is this Q asking us to weaken _____ " scares me a bit.

Str/Weak answers are often unpredictable, so cast a wide net. As the Q says, we're here to weaken the editor's argument.

The correct answer ends up basically contradicting one of the author's premises, which is pretty unusual for a correct answer. But since that premise was itself just speculation in the future tense, it is an opinion, not a fact. Thus, it's a little more "in bounds" for LSAT to attack it.

If your concern was, "How should I have seen this answer coming?", my answer is, "You shouldn't have. You just ask yourself, 'if true, would this hurt the editor's argument?'"

Hope this helps.

[LukeM22]

So, I can see why C is wrong and D is right... but not for the reasons/logic articulated above.

C was supposed to have been marked wrong because it required additional assumptions-- that is, we would need to know more information before we could conclude that the time (and costs) saved through "less time" for pick-ups is greater the additional costs involved in having weekly pick-ups in the first place. Fair enough. Yet, for D, we similarly don't have enough information to conclude that ease for users --> greater volume. It very well could, but it could also mean less work for people contributing the same amount of volume. Again, we don't know.

Now, I did notice that C uses conjectural language "the city expects A" as opposed to the statement-of-fact of language of D "is substantially easier". This makes C a significantly weaker answer. Is it fair to say that this is a better reason for eliminating C?

[ohthatpatrick]

Correct answers to Strengthen and Weaken certainly are never bulletproof.

With (C), we can't prove that the expenses will be less in the new plan.
With (D), we can't prove that the revenue will be more in the new plan, but "easier to follow and adhere to" does seem to make it very likely that there are more people putting out recyclables consistently under the new plan.

I can see where you're saying that "an expectation" in (C) is inherently weaker than an actual fact in (D). That's true.

But you should probably care more about "less time" in (C) vs. "substantially easier" in (D).
And you should probably care more that "less time per pickup" in (C) is offset by the fact that this plan has "twice as many pickups".

Even if each pickup is 70% as long as it was before, now that we're going every week (instead of once every two weeks), that would still mean more total pickup time under the new plan.

You might also prefer (D) in terms of the fact that it's more connected to the argument core, since the premise was about doubting whether there would be the revenue uptick.

(C) is attempting to weaken by showing that the new plan COULD be more cost effective.
But the author is less about attacking the claim "the new plan will be more cost effective" and more about attacking the "absurd" logic.

If we're comparing which answer helps us better weaken by saying, "Hey, author, this argument WASN'T absurd. There WILL be a greater volume of recyclables collected per year ....
because ... each pickup will take less time?
or
because people will find it way easier to remember when to put out recyclables, with this new plan?

[WilliamS670]

Isn't (C) also problematic because it weakens the argument's conclusion, rather than its reasoning? The conclusion is that the new program will be not be more cost-effective, because the same amount of stuff will be recycled. (D), the correct answer, destroys the premise, and therefore the link between it and the conclusion. (C) doesn't speak to the link between premise and conclusion. It just shows that the conclusion may not be true, for reasons outside of the premise.

EDIT/ADDENDUM: I suppose (C) could be said to indirectly weaken the link between premise and conclusion, by introducing an additional consideration. It may be true that the same amount of stuff will be recycled, but that doesn't necessarily demonstrate the program won't be more cost-effective, because we've got this additional consideration, (C), which points to lower costs nonetheless.