Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled with a code number (from 1 to 9) indicating the type or quality of...

shunhe March 27, 2020

Hi @alliehall21,

Thanks for the question! Let’s take a look at what the argument is telling us. In essence, it’s arguing that consumers can help reduce unrecycled waste by refusing to purchase products in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers. Now, there might be reasons in the real world that they actually do or do not purchase those products. But the argument being made here in the passage is more of a theoretical one: if, in a hypothetical world, consumers did in fact refuse to purchase products in plastic containers with the highest code numbers, then the resulting effect would be that the amount of waste that goes unrecycled in the long-term would be significantly reduced. (D) gives us a reason to believe that people might not actually purchase lower-code numbered plastics in the real world, but it doesn’t give us a reason to doubt the logic of the reasoning presented in the passage. Thus, (D) doesn’t really undermine the conclusion that the passage is trying to make—it’s really just irrelevant.

(C), on the other hand, attacks the logic of the argument itself, and not whether or not the phenomena described in the argument actually play out in the real world. It questions the hypothetical scenario that the question sets up by showing that higher-code numbered plastics are just recycled from lower-code ones, which means that while there might be a short-term reduction in the amount of recycled waste, it’s unlikely that there will be a long-term reduction (since the number of the plastics would keep going up, and then those wouldn’t be recycled).

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.