PT8.S4.Q24 - Most disposable plastic containers are now

Bomhillz

I'm having trouble understanding why the right answer is the correct on it's own merit. I can eliminate (a), (b), and (d) fairly easily. (e) I could use some assistance clarifying since I'm still shaky #help

Weakening question

CTX - numbers indication type/quality of plastic. Lower numbers easier to recycle and less likely to end up in landfill.
P --- Higher numbers rarely recycled
C --- Consumers can reduce waste by refusing to buy products with high coded plastics

(a) cost of recycling more expensive than using new plastics. Irrelevant to C, eliminate
(b) Consumers are unaware of codes. C seems to assume knowledge of codes, so P -- C support is unaffected. eliminate
(c) After a plastic is recycled it gets a higher number because of degradation. correct but not sure why
(d) lower codes less expensive as higher codes. again cost is irrelevant, eliminate
(e) Recycling communities only dump high coded plastics in landfill when they're sure no recycler will take them. Doesn't address the purchasing of plastics, or how communities get plastics in first place. So C is not weakened, eliminate

Admin note: edited title

EvetteCee

This was a very tricky question, but I'll give it a shot in explaining.

P1: Lower numbered plastics most often recycled.
P1: Higher numbered plastics are rarely recycled.

Conclusion: Refusing to buy high numbered plastics ---> reduce amount of waste not recycled (AKA the high numbered plastics)

Answer C says that a lot of the higher numbered plastics were once lowered number plastics. So, a lot of the higher number plastics were already recycled, which means that refusing to buy high number plastics will not reduce the amount of waste that goes unrecycled ... because a low numbered plastic turns to a high numbered plastic.

In other words, the stimulus assumes that the higher numbered plastics were high numbered to begin with, so if one were to stop buying them then there would be less high numbered plastics that go without being recycled. Answer choice C disproves that assumption.

Kind of make sense?

Bomhillz

@EvetteCee

because a low numbered plastic turns to a high numbered plastic.
In other words, the stimulus assumes that the higher numbered plastics were high numbered to begin with, so if one were to stop buying them then there would be less high numbered plastics that go without being recycled. Answer choice C disproves that assumption.

Kind of make sense?

Totally makes sense, didn't see that assumption at all but now (c) fits. Thank you!!

HopefullyHLS

It took me some time to go for C, because I was thinking that even if some of the high-number products used to be low-number products, it might still be a better option to go for the low-number products.

Though, there is a tiny key-word in the stimulus: LONG-TERM. Even if C is true, it will still make sense for us to go for low-number products, but IN THE LONG RUN recycling those will only result in the proportion of high-number products getting bigger and bigger.

Tricky question, and AC C does not completely destroy the argument, as it could be the case that it still makes more sense to go for low-number products despite the effect of C. But it does weaken the argument more compared to the other answer choices!