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.

This certainly doesn't weaken the editor's argument: if anything, it might loosely strengthen the editor's general position that the city's new program won't live up to the city's claims. But this statement technically doesn't weaken the city's claim, either: it's important to see that even though the city claims the new program will be \"more cost effective\" than the old one, that doesn't mean the new program will reach the standard for being \"cost effective\" on its own, whatever that standard is.

This doesn't weaken the editor's argument. The editor's conclusion isn't about how much time the pickups take, but about the overall volume that will be picked up. This answer choice works perfectly fine with the editor's claim that the same overall volume will be picked up \"spread out over a greater number of pickups\".

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. Even if the overall volume put out is the same, the fact that people are more likely to put out their recyclables on schedule might make the pickup process more efficient and ensure the whole volume is actually picked up, rather than some recyclables being left out in a less efficient system. Both these cases would strengthen the city's claim and undermine the editor's.

This strengthens the editor’s argument that the new program will not be more cost-effective. The contractor charging more to collect recyclables more often might outweigh whatever benefit, if any, comes from collecting more recyclables.