#23 - Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which

[LSATls]

I really dislike that one is supposed to infer from (D) that the volume of recyclables will likely increase. Why would people recycle more just because the recycling schedule is easier to follow and adhere to? Finally comprehending the schedule of recycling pickups, the residents suddenly either (1) use more recyclables and recycle at the same or a greater rate; or (2) use the same amount of recyclable and recycle at a greater rate?

Another problem is that it’s unclear what the “this” in the editor’s conclusion is referring to. If the “this” is referring to the premise in the city’s argument that the volume of recyclables will increase with the new recycling program, then (D) makes sense, so long as we make the strained inference above. But if “this” is referring to the city’s overall conclusion — that the new program will be more cost effective — then (C) also seems correct, suggesting as it does that the cost effectiveness might instead come from lower transportation costs. (C) also requires a strained inference, of course, but no more so than (D).

[Jeremy Press]

Hi LSATIs,

Solid (and penetrating) questions!

Leave the variable you've mentioned (amount of recyclables used), plus any others (number of motivated recyclers in the city, etc.), the same, because there is no information to suggest those variables change with the switch from old program to new program. If the old program is harder to follow and adhere to than the new one, then there will very likely be people under the old program who make mistakes in (and have their motivation diminished by the difficulty of) following and adhering to the schedule. They forget which week they're on, or they don't know which week they're on so they don't bother to figure it out (and therefore don't recycle), or they just give up. That means in the city as a whole under the old program, there will be fewer recyclables being put out than under the new system. People definitely have different readings of these answers sometimes, but I don't find that inference terribly strained. It requires only the assumption that, all else equal, people tend to do something more when it's easier to do.

The "this" problem doesn't create as much of a conundrum as you're thinking, because answer choice C doesn't actually suggest greater cost-effectiveness in the new system. Sure, each individual pickup takes less collection time under the new program, because the city is collecting only a week's worth of recyclables. But, there will be more individual pickups under the new program (one every week, versus one every two weeks), so answer choice C doesn't provide a definitive suggestion of time savings/cost-effectiveness. If anything, it sounds like a wash.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[AlyssaY]

When I first did this question, I prephrased an answer that would attack the editor's argument of "since volume of recycle will be the same, the new program will not be more cost effective". With that in mind, I went into the answers to look for any reason the program might be more cost effective, which is why I got caught up on answer C. It seemed to give one reason the program might save money -- it'll take less time for pickups.

But upon reviewing, I diagrammed the arguments like this:

City claims:
Premise: greater volume of recycle --> greater revenue for city
Conclusion: weekly pickup will be more cost effective

Editor claims:
Premise: volume of recycle will be the same overall
Conclusion: the city’s claims are absurd

I realized the editor's conclusion is that the city's claims are absurd, which I don't think is necessarily the same as the editor believing the program will not be more cost effective. His/her only support for the conclusion is the assumption that "the volume will be the same". By looking for an answer that instead attacks the editor's assumption, I was able to get to answer D -- that there is a reason why the volume of recycle may be greater under the new program.

Is this the correct way to read this question? If the stimulus/editor explicitly said "therefore, the new program will not be more cost effective", could C be a correct answer in that case? Or does that still require the outside assumption that less time --> less money?

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Alyssa!

Yes, the conclusion of the editor is that the city's argument is absurd because the editor thinks there will be the same volume of recyclables overall. Answer choice (D) weakens this by saying that, actually, the volume of recyclables may go up because people find it easier to adhere to a weekly schedule and are therefore more likely to recycle their items rather than throwing them away.

But answer choice (C) would still not be a good answer even if the argument was about cost effectiveness. Check out what Jeremy stated above:

C doesn't actually suggest greater cost-effectiveness in the new system. Sure, each individual pickup takes less collection time under the new program, because the city is collecting only a week's worth of recyclables. But, there will be more individual pickups under the new program (one every week, versus one every two weeks), so answer choice C doesn't provide a definitive suggestion of time savings/cost-effectiveness. If anything, it sounds like a wash.

Less time per pickup doesn't necessarily mean less money because there are still more pickups overall.

It's always important to correctly identify conclusions in any stimulus that contains an argument. Knowing the specific conclusion is crucial for Weaken, Strengthen, Justify, Assumption, Flaw, Parallel, Main Point, Method, and Point at Issue questions. So, if you aren't already, make sure to get in the habit of carefully identifying and then underlining or highlighting the exact conclusion in every argument you see!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[cacao825]

I was confused with why answer D was correct like some people above me, because of the part that infers "easier to follow schedule" will allow people to "recycle more". Jeremy's explanation above seems to clarify it for me when I think of it that way. But during the test, I thought that making that inference was too much of a stretch. For example, it is true that if the schedule is more difficult, people might recycle "less" because they are more likely to forget or lose track. But just because it is easier, doesn't imply that they will recycle "more" than usual. They might still forget to recycle or some people just don't care about the recycle schedule and recycle as they wish. Now that I am writing this question down, I think I kind of get it.

If the normal standard of people recycling regardless of schedule is 50 bottles,
If the schedule is more difficult(every other week) -> makes people recycle less -> people recycle 40 bottles
If the schedule is easier(every week) -> people recycle as usual or better -> people recycle 50+ bottles

Would this be a reasonable logic as to why answer D is correct?

What should I keep in mind so that I don't make the same mistake in the future regarding similar questions?

[Adam Tyson]

Your approach looks valid to me, cacao825.

One thing I would add for anyone confused about this question is that we do not have to prove that under the new program there will be more recycling. A weaken answer only needs to raise some doubts about the argument, and need not prove anything.

The author argues that the city's reasoning is absurd because they think that there will be the exact same amount of recycling under the new plan (and thus no additional revenue from the sale of additional recyclable materials). Focus on their premise in the last sentence to see how they got to their conclusion. We don't need to prove that the city is correct, or that the author is incorrect. We just need to suggest the possibility that the author might be wrong, and that the new program could perhaps result in more recycling.

Answer D is enough to raise those doubts, because a program that is easier to follow could result in greater use of the program, with more recyclables making it into the weekly collection instead of going into the garbage. It doesn't have to have that result, but it is entirely reasonable to believe that it might, and that's all we need, just that element of doubt.

Some folks are attracted to answer C, but it has nothing to do with the possibility of increasing the amount of material recycled, and fails to address that premise in the last sentence. The issue is whether more recycling will happen, and not how much time the pickups will take!

[mkarimi73]

Could I possibly have an explanation as to why E is incorrect? I interpreted E as saying that the contractor will charge the citizens of the city for the pickups, thus making it more likely that the city will be able gain more revenue under the new recycling program. Please correct me if I am wrong. (I guess the test-makers were getting at the contractors charging the city rather than the citizens.)

[jackielsat]

Could you please explain why C is wrong? I was thinking because the pickups take less time, they could pick up garbage from more neighborhoods than they previously could

[Adam Tyson]

mkarimi73 - Answer E says nothing about the contractor charging the citizens directly, but even if it did, that would still strengthen the claim that the change would not be cost effective. It's saying that the cost under the new program would go up! We need an answer that suggests that the cost might go down, or that the revenues generated by the program might increase due to more recycling and thus more revenue from selling the recyclables.

jackielsat - Each week might take less time than doing it every two weeks, but they could still be taking just as much or even more time in total. Imagine that pickups every two weeks takes 8 hours, while doing it every week takes 6 hours per week, for a total of 12 hours over two weeks, an increase of 50%. But even if the time is cut in half, 4 hours per week, it's still taking just as much time in total as the current program does.

Don't make assumptions about what the city could or would do with the saved time each week! Good answers don't need our help in that way - they do the job all on their own, without us having to add our own ideas to them.

Also, answer C doesn't give us any reason to believe that collections will increase, which is why the supporters think it will be more cost effective, and which the author is claiming will not occur.

[mkarimi73]

So, correct me if I am wrong. "Cost effective" means "effective or productive in relation to its cost" (Google); Merriam-Webster says it means "producing good results without costing a lot of money." (I had to look up what "cost effective" means because the LSAT likes to test that term a lot.)

The conclusion of the stimulus is: "The city claiming that the new recycling program will be more cost effective is absurd. It will not be more cost effective." (I'm obviously paraphrasing here.) Had I known what cost effective means, (D) sticks out like a bigger sore thumb over the rest of the answer choices, given its powerful wording and its subtle suggestion that the new program will be more cost effective.

However, my issue is: how can we assume that an easier pickup schedule means "producing good results without costing a lot"? Are we allowed to make such an assumption? What if an easier pickup schedule costs just as much as the old program or more? Am I bringing in outside knowledge that is not relevant to this particular question? Thanks in advance.