Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured pickup of recyclables every other week, was too costly....

Christopher on November 26, 2016

Why D?

It seems like the editor directly counters D by saying it will result in the same volume being left out, making the effort pointless.

3 Replies

Mehran on December 3, 2016

@csdinkel let's take a closer look.

The conclusion here is, "But this is absurd."

What is "this?" The city's new recycling program, which features weekly pickup, resulting in a greater volume of recyclables collected per year.

And why is this absurd? Because, "People will put out the same volume of recyclables overall; it will just be spread out over a greater number of pickups."

We are looking for an answer choice that most weakens this argument.

(D) weakens this argument by pointing out that the new, weekly schedule is substantially easier for people to follow, i.e. people will remember to put out their recyclables more on a weekly basis than on a bi-weekly basis.

If people are more likely to put out their recyclables under the new system, it would weaken the argument because people would not put out the same volume of recyclables as they did previously.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Trevor on August 10 at 07:16PM

Just cause the schedule is easier to follow, how can we make that jump and assume that people will actually follow it?

Mikayla on October 6 at 08:33AM

I have the same question as Trevor^ how does the schedule being easier to follow guarantee a difference in the amount of recyclables people are putting out? I don't really see how this would weaken the premise about the overall difference in volume of recyclables being put out. Thanks in advance!