Q24 - Most disposable plastic containers

[weiyichen1986]

Hello there,

i am wondering about Why D is incorrect? if plastic with lowest code is more expensive then the highest code plastic, then people would instead buying the highest code plastics, then the argument would fall apart....

am i reasoning correctly here?

thank you in advance...

[maryadkins]

The argument isn't about what people would do; it's about what they SHOULD do, right? The core is:

plastics with lowest numbers are easiest to recycle

-->

consumers can make a big impact on the amount of waste that goes unrecycled by refusing to purchase high numbered plastics

(D) may suggest what consumers are likely to do based on the price, but it doesn't get to the core, which is about what will make the biggest impact on recycling.

(A) likewise doesn't get at the issue of whether using only high numbered plastics will help recycling overall.

(B) is irrelevant.

(C) Bingo! The higher numbered ones are often recycled already. That means if consumers avoid purchasing them, they're not purchasing what's BEEN recycled already. That can't be good for the recycling industry.

(E) Okay, but higher numbered ones are still less likely to be recycled. We were told so.

[iridium77]

(B) is irrelevant.

I don't see why b.) is irrelevant.
If consumers are unaware of codes stamped on plastic containers, they cannot 'make a significant long term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled'

[eapetrilli]

To eliminate (B) again notice that the conclusion is about what consumers could do if they take the appropriate steps and not whether they will actually take these steps. Also, even if it were about the likelihood of them going through with the recommendation, (B) still allows for some people to be aware, and some people can still make a substantial impact.

[georxia]

I understand for conditional conclusion you weaken it by showing when sufficient occurs the necessary doesn't have to occur.

The explanation for answer C is that if people aren't buying highest code numbers, then they aren't purchasing what's been recycled already. This in turn does not help support the recycling industry.

But the conclusion's necessary condition is "consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled" How does not purchasing what has already been recycled hurt this necessary condition?

Wouldn't purchasing the higher number still increase the amount of waste because they are more unlikely to be recycled

[maryadkins]

To eliminate (B) again notice that the conclusion is about what consumers could do if they take the appropriate steps and not whether they will actually take these steps. Also, even if it were about the likelihood of them going through with the recommendation, (B) still allows for some people to be aware, and some people can still make a substantial impact.

Yes! Good explanation.

But the conclusion's necessary condition is "consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled" How does not purchasing what has already been recycled hurt this necessary condition?

Wouldn't purchasing the higher number still increase the amount of waste because they are more unlikely to be recycled

If you're not purchasing what's being recycled, you're not helping the recycling industry, as you noted. This weakens the argument because we now have no idea what it means not to purchase the higher numbers. But if people aren't buying the recycled materials, eventually recycling will take a hit. That's not sustainable. So odds are in the long-run, it'll actually be a bad thing.

[redcobra21]

"If you're not purchasing what's being recycled, you're not helping the recycling industry, as you noted." This weakens the argument because we now have no idea what it means not to purchase the higher numbers. But if people aren't buying the recycled materials, eventually recycling will take a hit. That's not sustainable. So odds are in the long-run, it'll actually be a bad thing.

I don't really see what "not helping the recycling industry" has to do with the argument. It states that if consumers refuse to purchase the highest code numbers, they can make a long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled. Couldn't it be the case that there is a company that exclusively makes plastic containers with Code 1 while there are other companies that make containers out of recycled materials that would have higher codes (if you follow the reasoning of answer C)?

[hyl387]

Every level 1 plastic recycled will eventually become a level 9 waste. Therefore, whichever grade of plastic you consume today, that plastic adds up to the waste unrecycled someday in the future. In other words, it won't matter.

[WaltGrace1983]

Thought i'd just do a full breakdown of this one. Is it just me or was this a CRAZY flaw to pick at? I was thinking it would be something totally different ("the higher-numbered plastics, comprising of the majority of all plastics, that are not bought will eventually be thrown in a landfill" or something).

Plastics with lowest numbers = easiest to recycle
+
Plastics with highest numbers = hardest to recycle
→
If you don't buy higher numbers, we can reduce the amount of plastic not recycled

We want to weaken this conclusion. In other words, we want to show that ~(buying higher numbers) does not necessarily lead to (less amount of unrecycled material). First of all, we are talking specifically about plastics in the stimulus but making a conclusion about net change. Whose to say that plastics comprise of any significant amount of unrecycled waste? In addition, I also saw that maybe not buying the high-numbered plastics would have a detrimental effect, such as all of it would be thrown in a landfill or something.

(A) Cost? We don't care about cost! It could cost $1,000,000 for all I am concerned. We are working from the idea that people will buy lower-numbered plastics. Thus, any cost difference doesn't matter.

(B) In a similar fashion, even if they are unaware now we are working from the idea that people will only buy lower-numbered plastics anyway. Eliminate.

(C) This is comparing higher-numbered plastics with lower-numbered plastics. Really not sure how this is relevant but I'll keep it because its the best thing I've gotten so far.

(D) Once again, we don't care about costs. We are working from the idea that people are going to buy the lowest-numbered plastics anyway.

(E) I thought about this in formulaic language...Communities that collect all discard plastic containers → (Clear that no recycler will take higher-numbered plastics → dump in landfills plastics with higher-numbered codes). This is such a specific answer choice and it seems a bit too specific for a weakener. However, even if we assumed that that there were tons of these communities - enough that would make a significant dent in the net amount of unrecycled plastics, we know absolutely nothing about how many times these recyclers are certain that "no recycler will take higher-numbered plastics."

There are just too many unanswered questions. How many communities do this? How often is it unclear/clear about whether or not people will recycle these higher-numbered plastics. I just don't know and if it includes information I don't know anything about I am too hesitant to pick it.

I got to (C) by process of elimination. I knew that (A), (B) and (D) were absolutely wrong and (E) was one I was way too skeptical about. On test day, I would just give (C) a quick glance again and think "meh, this seems the most right," move on, and try to come back later. For purposes of this review, I'll look at (C) again.

(C) Let's just kind of omit the explanation why this phenomenon occurs in (C). In other words, lets just think about the phrase, "A plastic container almost always has a higher number after it is recycled than it had before recycling."

From (C), we can understand the shadow of a doubt it places on the conclusion. (C) says that a significant amount of these higher numbered plastics actually originated as lower numbered plastics. So not buying higher-numbered plastics wouldn't do much to reduce or increase amount of stuff recycled. Why? Because once something is a higher-numbered plastic then, chances are, it has already been recycled. And once something has been recycled (a higher-numbered plastic) it cannot be unrecycled.

The argument is assuming that higher numbered plastics started as higher numbered plastics. (C) pokes a hole in this.

I hope that makes sense. It is incredibly complicated.

[mharr]

^That was one AWESOME explanation! Thank you, WaltGrace.

[jadewzheng]

Hi! Throwing my 2 cents here-

How Answer C was the correct answer was really puzzling for me (I chose B originally), and it made more sense when I looked at it from a proposed action/intended result perspective: what are the risks/downsides if we do take this action? My reasoning is below:

The key pieces from the premise:
-The lower the number, the more likely it is to be recycled
-Plastics with the highest numbers are only rarely recycled

Conc:
Consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled, therefore, by refusing to purchase those products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers.

Let’s say that customers do take the action of refusing to purchase products with highest code numbers, and opt for lower numbers. Where do these plastics end up? Recycling—not the landfills! Isn’t that what we want?

But wait, C says: after a plastic container is recycled, it gets a higher number. Based on the premises given, we know that this means it becomes harder to recycle—>more likely to be dumped in landfills.

Therefore, when customers do refuse to purchase products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers, they are unknowingly generating MORE materials that can potentially go to waste unrecycled to be in the market for others to buy.