#14 - Mayor: Our city faces a difficult environmental

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (B)

The mayor discusses the environmental issue facing the city: the disposal of an enormous amount of
garbage. On one hand, new recycling projects could reduce the current level of garbage. However,
the mayor says, this would somehow hurt the city’s efforts to minimize overall environmental
damage.

The paradox presented here is fairly clear: somehow the new recycling projects can reduce the
current amount of garbage that the city is dealing with, but will somehow also be counter-productive
to the city’s efforts to keep environmental damage to a minimum. This will most likely appear in the
form of some previously unstated detriment associated with the new recycling projects.

The stimulus is followed, somewhat predictably, by a Resolve the Paradox question, so the correct
answer choice will provide some explanation of how the new recycling projects can be counterproductive
in spite of their ability to reduce the city’s current garbage pile-up.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice provides that incineration would cause more pollution than
the recycling vehicles. Since this does not help to explain how the new recycling projects could be
counterproductive, it does not resolve the paradox and can be ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The new recycling projects come with
significant opportunity costs. If taking on the new projects will prevent the city from getting started
on other pollution-preventing projects, then that would explain how the new projects could be
counter-productive to the big-picture goal of keeping environmental damage to a minimum.

Answer choice (C): The fact that the city currently resorts to incineration does not resolve the
paradox presented in the stimulus; it does not explain how new recycling projects could reduce the
amount of garbage to be disposed of, while still working against the goal of minimizing damage to
the environment.

Answer choice (D): This choice provides a selling point for recycling—that its increased use might
lead others to use recycled products—but it does not explain the apparent discrepancy that exists
between the premise that recycling can reduce the city’s overall garbage disposal issues while still
being counterproductive to its goal of minimizing overall environmental damage.

Answer choice (E): This choice basically provides that people who recycle tend to want to waste less
(they don’t feel as justified consuming more than they need). This supports the idea that recycling
could reduce the overall amount of garbage that the city needs to dispose of, but does not explain
how the new recycling projects could be counterproductive to the goal of minimizing overall
environmental damage.

[ShannonOh22]

On this question, the explanation for why C is incorrect doesn't quite make sense to me...

C states "The mayor's city has nearly exhausted its landfill space and therefore must incinerate much of its garbage" - would this not resolve the discrepancy in the mayor's argument by proving that even if the recycling projects cut down on the volume of garbage, the environmental damage caused by any amount of garbage will still be significant, because everything will be burned?

Answer B makes sense to a certain degree, but it seems to contradict itself..."the great costs of new recycling projects would prevent other pollution projects from being undertaken". The mayor says the "enormous amount of garbage" is the "cause" of the "difficult environmental problem" in his city. Would this not mean it is the greatest contributor to pollution in that city, and therefore would be more effective than supporting other "pollution-reducing projects"?

Please let me know where I'm off on my logic here...thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi Shannon,

For (C) to be correct, we would still have to tie it to recycling, which would mean making an extra assumption that the recycling projects would lead to more garbage incineration somehow, because the stimulus claims that building the recycling center will actually worsen the pollution problem. (B) does work because it forces a trade-off that would allow the recycling center to still exacerbate the pollution problem by preventing enough other anti-measures being taken to more than offset the recycling.

Hope this clears things up!

[ShannonOh22]

Thank you, James! That does help - when you noted C would require making an additional assumption, it all made much more sense. I appreciate you taking the time to respond!