#24 - Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled

[esther913]

Your approach is much better!
Thank you for kindly explaining how to tackle this sort of argument.
I greatly appreciate your help

[ltowns1]

I picked (D). It certainly has it’s own set of problems, but is it really fair to say that price isn’t relevant? If the most expensive type of plastics are those that have a lower grade than wouldn’t that be relevant to whether people purchased them or not? Also, should you read the conclusion as a “if, then statement? “ If you refuse to by products plastic containers with the highest code, then you can make a significant difference in waste that goes unrecycled?

If you can read it that way, then I think I get why pricing doesn’t matter.

[Adam Tyson]

You can and should read the conclusion that way, ltowns1! Good work! Also, this argument is not about what people will do, or would be willing to do, but only about what the effect would be if they DID do something. They COULD make a difference if they stopped buying products with the highest numbered package codes. So price is not relevant at all - they still COULD make that difference, according to the author. Whether they will or not, whether the lower price will give them an incentive to keep buying the products with the higher codes, is simply not the issue.

[Mgwang]

Hi, I'm still a little confused about why C is correct. When first when reading answer C, I thought it would strengthen the conclusion because lower graded plastic is still being recycled and thus would be reducing plastic waste. Could you explain why this wouldn't strengthen the conclusion.

Thanks

[Jeremy Press]

Hi mg!

We're trying to weaken a conclusion that consumers can make "a significant long-term reduction in waste that goes unrecycled." The possibility that answer choice C introduces is that eventually (over the long term) the plastic containers we recycle will get to the point where they have the highest code number and thus become very unlikely to be recycled. Those highest-code number plastics will then pile up without being recycled, and we won't see the significant long-term reduction we're hoping for. So even if there could be a short-term reduction under answer choice C, there would not be a significant long-term reduction. That definitely weakens the conclusion.

Let me know if that clears it up!

[ridolph.lauren]

I totally can see why C would be the right answer.

However, I have to say in reading everyone's questions and the rational given for why the other four are incorrect, it seems that this particular weaken question is really more about the best answer than just four "not weaken" and one correct answer. Would you say that is right?

I keep looking to eliminate four answers that either don't weaken as in go along with the conclusion or do nothing to the conclusion. When I read, for example, answer D, I consider that the author's conclusion that people should purchase plastics with labels in the lower number category, that this effort would be sabotaged by the idea that higher cost would deter people from doing so. This could undermine the author's effort in the conclusion. Obviously, not the best answer as compared to C .and yet I am curious if the fact that cost is the deterrent, does it matter because there are people who would be willing to pay more?

[Adam Tyson]

As I see it, ridolph.lauren, answer D is like the other incorrect answers here in that they do absolutely nothing to the conclusion about what effect consumers can have by changing their purchasing behavior. Your analysis of answer D is focused on whether people WOULD do that if given the chance, or whether they could afford to do it. Would they pay more? Could they pay more? We don't know. But if they DID pay more, COULD they have the predicted effect on the amount of waste that goes unrecycled? Only answer C suggests that such a change would not have that effect, and would in fact have the opposite effect.

[ridolph.lauren]

Thank you. That does clarify things for me. Basically all the information that is needed to weaken the question should appear in the answer choice rather than trying to assume or guess what people would do. We need to choose answers that are as complete as possible to support the weakening of the conclusion. Thank you.

[NeedtopasstheLSAT]

Hi, I can see why C is correct (I chose B) but with the descriptions above as to why B is wrong, I am having a hard time eliminating it. What I learned through power score is that in LSAT language many means 51-100 %. With that said, if many people do not know about the number system, a majority of the population does not know about it, meaning the whole conclusion produced what is weakened, no?

[katehos]

Thanks for your question, needtopasstheLSAT!

You're correct about the meaning of the word many - good job! The reason why (B) can be eliminated stems from its irrelevance to the conclusion. While it might seem like the consumers knowledge matters, ultimately, it's a separate issue from the argument presented in the stimulus. The stimulus argues that consumers CAN make a difference, not that they will. So, whether or not consumers are actually aware of (or unaware of) the codes does not impact the truth of whether or not refusing to purchase plastics with high codes could have a long-term impact.

I hope this helps!
Kate