LSAT 144 – Section 4 – Question 23

LSAT 144 - Section 4 - Question 23

October 2015

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:30

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT144 S4 Q23
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
A
2%
155
B
2%
153
C
20%
160
D
71%
166
E
5%
157
147
156
165
 +Harder 147.675 +SubsectionMedium

Live Commentary

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Editor: The city’s previous recycling program, which featured pickup of recyclables every other week, was too costly. The city claims that its new program, which features weekly pickup, will be more cost effective, since the greater the volume of recyclables collected per year, the more revenue the city gains from selling the recyclables. But this is absurd. People will put out the same volume of recyclables overall; it will just be spread out over a greater number of pickups.

Summarize Argument
The editor concludes that the city’s claim about its new recycling program are absurd. This is because the same overall volume of recyclables will be collected, just over a greater number of collections.

Notable Assumptions
For the city’s claim to be absurd, the editor must assume that there could be no other benefits to the new collection schedule besides increasing the overall volume of recyclables collected. Since that volume will stay the same, the editor can’t see how the collection cycle could possibly be beneficial.

A
The cost of collecting and disposing of general trash has been less than the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables, and this is still likely to be the case under the new recycling program.
We don’t care about general trash. We need to know whether the new recycling program will live up to the city’s claim.
B
Even if the volume of collected recyclables increases, that increase might not be enough to make the recycling program cost effective.
The city never claims the program will hit some arbitrary threshold of “cost effective.” It simply claims the program will be more cost effective.
C
Because the volume of recyclables people accumulate during a week is less than what they accumulate during two weeks, the city expects a recyclables pickup to take less time under the new program.
While a pickup will take less time, we have no idea how long two pickups every two weeks will take versus one pickup every two weeks. The author’s argument remains intact if those two pickups together take as long, or longer, than the single biweekly pickup.
D
A weekly schedule for recyclables pickup is substantially easier for people to follow and adhere to than is a schedule of pickups every other week.
While the overall volume will stay the same, people are more likely to put out their recyclables on a weekly schedule. Thus, the city will collect and sell more recyclables than before.
E
Because of the increase in the number of pickups under the new program, the amount charged by the contractor that collects the city’s recyclables will increase significantly.
This strengthens the author’s argument. The new recycling program won’t just be the same as before—it’ll be even more expensive.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 144 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply