#24 - Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled

[priyajupudi]

Is it same to assume that you can eliminate answer choices that use the word "many" similarly?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Priya,

Welcome to the forum! Yes, I think the term "many" here is rather vague and ambiguous. That's definitely one strong reason to mark this answer off. The problem is that the term "many" in other questions is not always that vague. So it's contextual, which I think is what you are driving at when you say "similarly." So if you are thinking about Weakening questions oftentimes, "many" as a quantifier will very much so weaken an answer choice when characterizing a group that interacts with one of the propositions in the stimulus. I think that answers your question, but please let us know if it helps?

Thanks again for the great question!

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

After reading the explanations for B I am still not completely convinced. I now see why C is the better choice but I was hoping someone can shed some light on B.

I chose B because I assumed that if consumers are not aware of the codes that are stamped on the plastic containers then consumers cannot refuse to purchase those products that labeled with the highest code numbers (they would just choose whatever is available by random because they didn't know there was a code on the back), thus it would weaken the conclusion that consumers can make a signifiant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled.

Yes, many could mean some like 2 people in the world or millions- so for that reason we could weaken it because it does not weaken the argument the most. But i'm still stuck on the "unaware" part of the argument.

Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for asking, lunsandy! The key to answer B is that it has no impact on the conclusion, despite initial appearances. If the argument was that "consumers WILL make a difference" or that they "will PROBABLY make a difference", then answer B would be very attractive, because their lack of awareness would have a real impact on whether they would actually do anything. But the conclusion of the argument is that they CAN make a difference. Just because many are unaware and will therefore probably not make that difference, they still can - all they have to do is get educated and start paying attention! The POSSIBILITY of making a difference still exists!

But there's another reason to pick answer C over answer B, and you said it yourself: C is the better answer. We aren't tasked with picking "right" answers or "good" answers on this test. They didn't ask "which of the following weakens the argument". We are told to pick the BEST answer, and the question asked us which one MOST seriously undermines the argument. When you are faced with two answers that both appear to accomplish the task you've been given, one of them should be clearly and obviously better than the other. Pick that one! Don't waste any time or effort trying to disprove the other one, or helping it in some way to be better than it is. Don't expend precious brain power contemplating how an inferior answer might also somehow accomplish the task. Follow the instructions to the letter - pick the BEST answer, and know that all the others are the wrong ones, no matter how good you might think they are on their own.

Go for the best, always!

[martinbeslu]

I still feel like answer choice A does a much better job than answer choice C undermining the conclusion.

The argument in the stimulus is asking us to weaken the argument that:
refuse to purchase highest code numbers ----> reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled

If consumers want to make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes UNRECYCLED (i.e. not recycled even once) then refusing to buy plastic containers with the HIGHEST code numbers will have the desired affect UNLESS it isn't cost effective to recycle at all, in which case no matter what code number you buy it's going to the dump after you use it anyway.

As described in answer choice A, if the cost of recycling plastic is currently higher than the cost of manufacturing new plastic material then it won't matter if consumers refuse to purchase products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers because the manufacturer isn't going to bother recycling plastic anyway. If it is cost prohibitive to recycle the manufacturer will just keep making new plastic bottles from virgin materials with whatever code number people want to buy.

If it is cost prohibitive to recycle any plastic at all (as described in answer choice A) then this completely undermines the point of buying recyclable (lower code number) plastic in the first place. If it's currently too expensive for the manufacturer to recycle discarded plastic then it doesn't matter what code number you buy. It's not getting recycled anyway. This strongly undermines the conclusion.

If the code number goes up a little (or sometimes not at all according to answer C) each time plastic is recycled this doesn't harm the author's conclusion. By refusing to buy the highest code numbers we know that we are getting a plastic that can be recycled relatively easily at least once. This achieves the desired affect from the conclusion, to make a reduction in the amount of waste that goes "unrecycled". There is no reason that this could not continue long-term because the conclusion isn't saying that the same bottle will be recycled indefinitely, it's just saying that by taking this action (not buying plastic with the highest code numbers) the likelihood of it being recycled at least once is much better (make a significant reduction in the amount of waste that doesn't get recycled at all). The conclusion is also not saying that consumers should avoid any higher code number, it is only saying to avoid the "highest code numbers." This leaves plenty of opportunity for the plastic to be recycled at least once or twice before going to the landfill as long as the "type and quality" of the virgin plastic material starts out with a low enough code number to leave room for it be recycled economically at least once or twice before it reaches the "highest code number". If the virgin plastic material starts out with the "highest" code number (probably cheap plastic) then it will never be recycled even once. The purpose of the author's statements are to make a reduction in the amount of waste that goes straight to the landfill without ever being recycled, not to make it so that bottles can be re-used forever. The stimulus already tells us that once the plastic reaches the highest code number they won't recycle it anyway regardless of what consumers buy or don't buy so the only time the author's strategy would prevent a consumer from buying a product would be after it has already been recycled multiple times (desired effect already achieved) or the manufacturer used cheap (low quality) virgin materials to make the bottle and it is therefore unlikely to ever be recycled.

If the bottle has been recycled 10 times and the bottle is now labeled with the highest code number then it can be sold to someone who doesn't give a damn about recycling or it can be discarded. Either way, the desired effect of "making a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes UNRECYCLED" has already been accomplished. There is no need to recycle the bottle an infinite number of times to accomplish the stated goal.

What am I missing here?

[Jennifer Janowsky]

Hi! Interesting thought process. Let's look again at what you are saying about costs driving the production of plastics:

If it is cost prohibitive to recycle the manufacturer will just keep making new plastic bottles from virgin materials with whatever code number people want to buy.

If that is the case, than the consumers would still be driving manufacturers to make plastic bottles that are more easily recycled rather than bottles that are not recyclable.

Additionally, you are also missing that the question says that consumers buying lower numbered plastics can cause more to be recycled. Even if costs mean very little is recycled, the conclusion is simply explaining that abstaining from buying high coded plastics would lead to more recycling than the alternative.

(C) however would mean that all recycled plastics would inevitably become high coded with enough use, and therefore you would not be preventing their production.

[kyunglt]

I'm sorry. I don't think that C. is correct. The author discusses "disposable" plastic containers with the lower numbered ones have the highest likelihood of being recycled, rather than being dumped in a landfill. The author is not arguing about plastics that have already been recycled. The author contends that because the lower numbered plastics are more likely to be recycled, consumers should refuse to purchase the plastics with the higher-labeled codes. The weaken to that is, how can they refuse to buy the higher coded plastics, if they don't know about the codes? I think somebody dropped the ball on this one.

[Dave Killoran]

I'm sorry. I don't think that C. is correct. The author discusses "disposable" plastic containers with the lower numbered ones have the highest likelihood of being recycled, rather than being dumped in a landfill. The author is not arguing about plastics that have already been recycled. The author contends that because the lower numbered plastics are more likely to be recycled, consumers should refuse to purchase the plastics with the higher-labeled codes. The weaken to that is, how can they refuse to buy the higher coded plastics, if they don't know about the codes? I think somebody dropped the ball on this one.

I'll try to post a more comprehensive answer explaining what's happening here, but it may take a while. In the meantime, there is no error in this problem, and the correct answer is wholly defensible. Is it an easy answer to spot? No, not at all—this is a tough problem! But there's no flaw here, and the various PowerScore explanations within this lengthy thread do a good job of talking about why that is In the meantime, focus on why this answer is right as opposed to wrong, because ultimately, no matter what your or my personal take on this question is, the people who make the test say it's correct, and You Can't Argue With the LSAT.

I'm always happy to point out mistakes made by the test makers, but I don't see any errors in this problem.

Thanks!

[esther913]

Hi,
I am still confused with (C).
I was expecting the correct answer choice to hurt either the cause ("refusing to purchase those products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers") or the effect ("Consumers can make a long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled").

How does (C) attack the causal relationship in the conclusion?
I thought (C) was irrelevant to the conclusion because it was simply explaining the reason why a plastic container ends up with a higher code number after the recycling process.

Despite all the confusion, I have been trying to convince myself that (C) is the correct answer.
This is my thought process so far:
consumers refuse to buy products packaged in plastic containers with the highest code numbers
consumers buy products packaged in plastic containers with lower code numbers instead (this thought is not supported by the stimulus) plastic containers get recycled become plastic containers with higher code numbers eventually become plastic containers with the highest code numbers consumers refuse to buy products packaged in plastic containers with the highest code numbers accumulation of plastic containers that are “only rarely recycled” long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled is unlikely to happen.

I am not sure whether this is the correct way to utilize (C) in order to weaken the conclusion.
What would be a better approach?

Guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.

[Brook Miscoski]

Esther,

Others may have their own approach, but I didn't find it useful to think about this as cause and effect, although you could.

The stimulus describes a process (lower numbered plastics are more commonly recycled) and then makes a claim (buying only the lower number plastics will reduce the amount of waste that is not recycled).

We are to weaken that claim. On its face, the claim seems somewhat reasonable--if we buy plastics that are more commonly recycled, at least at that point we are reducing waste. To weaken this sort of argument, you look for additional factors or considerations. You have to remain open minded about how they will affect the argument.

(A) Cost of recycling versus original manufacture doesn't harm the idea that we should still buy plastics that are easiest to recycle.
(B) Awareness doesn't harm the idea that consumers should become aware and learn to use those codes.
(C) This tells us that if you buy a lower number plastic disposable container, when it's recycled, it will always be to a higher number plastic. Thus, if you're refusing to buy higher number plastics, you will increase waste instead of decrease waste, because you'll always refuse to buy the next recycled item. This destroys the argument--the argument only makes sense if plastic usually retains its quality after it is recycled.
(D) Cost doesn't harm the idea that buying lower numbers would reduce waste.
(E) Explaining how higher number plastics aren't recycled doesn't harm the idea that we should buy lower number plastics that are more likely to be recycled.