Self-study
Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured pickup of recyclables every other week, was too costly. ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████
Summarize Argument
According to the editor, the city is proposing a new recycling program, which will pick up recyclables every week instead of every other week, as the current program does. The city claims this new program will be more cost-effective, since collecting more recyclables each year will give the city more revenue from selling those recyclables. In other words, the city assumes it will collect a greater volume of recyclables under this program.
The editor claims the city's conclusion is absurd: his own conclusion, in other words, is that the new plan will not be more cost-effective than the old one. This is because he believes that the same volume of recyclables will be put out, and simply spread out over more pick-ups, suggesting that the new plan will be equally or less cost-effective than the original.
Notable Assumptions
To reject the city's claim, the editor must assume that there could be no other benefits to the new collection schedule that would make it more cost-effective, besides increasing the overall volume of recyclables collected. The editor also assumes that the volume of recyclables put out is the same as the volume of recyclables actually collected. Perhaps in the past, some of the recyclables put out were not all collected or somehow missed due to the old schedule, and the new program would allow the whole volume to be more accurately picked up.
23.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████
a
The cost of ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ████████
Irrelevant. We don’t care about general trash and how it compares to the cost of recycling. We're interested in how this new recycling program will compare to the old recycling program.
b
Even if the ██████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ██████████
This doesn't weaken the editor's argument. This claim is certainly consistent with the editor's position that the city's new program won't live up to the city's claims. But this statement actually doesn't weaken the city's claim, either. The city never claimed the new program would be "cost-effective" in general, whatever standard that would be based on — the city just claimed that the new program would be "more cost-effective" than the old one. So this answer choice is irrelevant.
c
Because the volume ██ ███████████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ █ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ █ ███████████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ████████
Even if each pickup takes less time, there will be twice as many pickups as before. Since we don't know how the time spent on each pickup versus the total number of pickups affects cost efficiency, we can't say this undermines the editor's argument. If having more frequent pickups, even if they are shorter, is more expensive overall, or if the two changes balance out to the same cost as before, then this answer choice could be perfectly consistent with the editor's claim that the new program will not be more cost-efficient than the old one.
d
A weekly schedule ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████ █████
This weakens the editor's argument. It suggests that the editor might not be right in claiming that the overall volume of recycling will stay the same. People might put out more recyclables because they remember the weekly schedule better. This scenario would strengthen the city's argument and undermine the editor's.
e
Because of the ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ██████████████
This strengthens the editor’s argument that the new program will not be more cost-effective. The contractor charging more to collect recyclables might outweigh whatever benefit, if any, comes from collecting recyclables more frequently.
Directionally wrong
Directionally wrong
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).