The conclusion of the argument is: "It is clear that attempts to decrease the amount of plastic that people throw away in the garbage are failing." Why? Because waste management companies "report that disposable plastics make up an ever-increasing percentage of the waste they handle."
The flaw here is that the author is equating a percent with an actual number. Just because the percentage is increasing, doesn't necessarily mean that the actual number is increasing. What is a larger number? 5% or 50%? To answer this question, we would need to know a percentage of what. Would you rather own 50% of the lemonade stand on the corner or 5% of Apple?
A simple numerical example will clarify what is happening on this question. Let's say that originally there were 100 total pieces of garbage in the landfill. Let's assume that originally there were 30 plastic pieces of waste and the rest were non-plastic. This means that originally 30% (i.e. 30/100) of the landfill was made up of plastic waste and 70% (i.e. 70/100) was made up of non-plastic waste.
Now imagine that the non-plastic waste begins to be recycled as well, which would mean that there will be less non-plastic waste items in the landfill. If this were true, this does not mean that the number plastic items are not necessarily decreasing. The attempts to decrease the amount of plastic could have worked. For example, let's pretend that the number of plastic items decreased from 30 to 20 but that the recycling of non-plastic items decreased the number of non-plastic items from 70 to 30. This means that plastic now makes up 40% (i.e. 20/50) of the entire landfill and non-plastics make up 60% (i.e. 30/50).
This is why answer choice (D) is correct. If more and more of the non-plastic items are being recycled, that means that the non-plastic items are making up a smaller and smaller percentage of the waste in the landfill. As such, this would weaken the argument "that attempts to decrease the amount of plastic that people throw away in the garbage are failing."
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
MarandaEsquireJuly 5, 2020
This was very helpful! Thank you.
Because the amount of the plastic could have first been 30 pieces and 70 pieces of non-plastic but more non plastic got recycled so non plastic items went from 70 to 30 and plastic went form 30 to 20, the TOTAL number we now have is 50 instead of the 100 which means that 20 plastic pieces out of the 50 pieces which would be 40% of the new total are in waste while 30 out of 50 which would be 60% non plastic pieces are in waste. The percentage increased but the amount did not.
I'm writing it so I can have it stick in my head. Now it's really clear and not so abstract.
Thanks Mehran!
augustinesalgadoDecember 7, 2021
"It is clear that attempts to decrease the amount of plastic that people throw away in the garbage are failing" indicates that the focal point to the argument is "the amount of plastic." However, in more clear terms: attempts are failing in reducing the disposal of plastics. Here, I believe that the "percentage" premise is irrelevant to the argument. Moreover, how does the inconsistency between "percentage" and "amount" hold weight when the argument is that "the attempts are failing?" I argue that it does not. "An increasing proportion of the paper, glass and metal cans that waste management companies used to handle is now being recycled" is not consistent with dismantling the "attempts to reduce plastic waste in the garbage."
RaviFebruary 11, 2022
As Mehran pointed out, this argument has a percentage vs. amount flaw. Making a conclusion about a number that's based on a premise that contains a percentage doesn't work, and it's the big hole in this argument. To weaken this, we want to find a reason that the percentage of plastics could be higher other than recycling efforts failing.
When looking at D, it's great because it states that there's less plastic going to the waste management companies, which suggest that the efforts are actually going well. The argument is attempting to use the percentage of plastic to other trash to make its overall conclusion, but the real consideration is the percentage of plastic that's in the trash compared to the percentage of plastic that is not in the trash. Thus, D is correct.
AneeshUJune 15, 2022
If 30/100 pieces of trash were initially plastic but became 30/97 (= 31% of the reduced waste) because of an increase in paper, glass and metal recycling (by reducing one percentage point each), if the amount of trash processed by the waste management company increases by only a marginal amount, the amount of disposable plastics (31% of the increased number) will be more than before, so how is (D) a valid answer?
On the other hand, with regard to (C) and using the same logic as was used to challenge (D) above, its possible that the plant receives less waste to dispose, and the proportion of the waste that is plastic is more than it was earlier, but at the same time the actual amount of plastic being disposed is less than before. According to my understanding then, both C and D are consistent with the amount of plastic being thrown away being both more or less than earlier. Based on Mehran's logic above that (D) could have worked, (C) could have worked too.
In the absence of any other signposts, (C) directly refutes the conclusion that attempts to encourage people to recycle disposable plastics have been futile by saying that "People are more likely to save and reuse plastic containers than containers made of heavier materials like glass or metal." We know that the percentage of recycled non-plastics at the plant has decreased, which means that the rate of recycling for plastics is increasing, pre-empting any argument that containers of heavier materials are not recycled all that much. Although the 'amount' of plastics thrown in the garbage might be more, (1) the plural 'attempt(s)' means that some attempts could have succeeded while others failed (2) the stimulus doesn't mention what the 'decrease' is in relation to - for all we know, it could be a decrease from the projected amount of waste to be disposed.
This presents a scenario in which the amount of plastic has not changed, yet the percent of trash which is plastic has changed.
You are completely right that there could also be a world in which an extra piece of plastic being thrown out would raise the percentage further. However, D does not tell us that we live in that world. D provides a clear reason why the argument is flawed- that perhaps the amount of plastic trash did not increase, but the amount of non-plastic trash fell. We do not need to prove the D happened, only that, if true, it would weaken the argument. you are trying to add new facts to D (an additional increase in plastic waste) that are simply not in D.
C, however, does not show an alternative cause for the rise in percentage of plastic waste. In fact, it shows that, if there was any absolute decrease, that decrease would have come from plastic, not other forms of trash.
I think you are overcomplicating this question. The argument is flawed because the author confuses an increase in percentage for an increase in the overall amount. D suggests that the increase in percentage was not due to an increase in plastic but to a fall in overall volume. Sure, we could invent a scenario where D is true, but for some reason it does not weaken the argument. Perhaps D is true, but a nuclear war also led to an increase in plastic use. You don't need to make additional assumptions about how D could weaken or not weaken the argument, since D alone gives us a clear case (as you show in your example) where the author is wrong about the overall volume of plastic waste not falling.
