#24 - Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled

[KendrickFrontiers]

Hey!

Had a question about this one. I can see why (C) is right now, but not really sure why (E) is wrong. If some communities dump plastics regardless of their level into higher-level plastic landfills when no recycler will take them. Wouldn't that also weaken the claim of consumers not buying these higher level plastics since they can get placed in higher level landfills anyway?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi KendrickFrontiers!

Happy to address why answer choice (E) is incorrect. To begin, we're given the following conclusion in the stimulus: "Consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled, therefore, by refusing to purchase those products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers." Given the question stem, we're then asked to weaken this conclusion.

If some communities dump plastics regardless of their level into higher-level plastic landfills when no recycler will take them.

I didn't see some of this language in the stimulus or answer choices, such as mention of "higher-level plastic landfills," i.e., there's no indication of separate types of landfills. I also didn't see language similar to communities dumping plastic "regardless" of something, but perhaps I missed it. Answer choice (E) states, "Communities that collect all discarded plastic containers for potential recycling later dump in landfills plastics with higher-numbered codes only when it is clear that no recycler will take them." That is, communities with comprehensive recycling programs do indeed try to recycle until the plastics cannot be recycled anymore. Instead of weakening the argument, this seems to do nothin--or perhaps is closer to strengthening it, inasmuch as it is affirming that the recycling programs work. In the end, though, even this doesn't quite address whether or not consumers can make a significant reduction in unrecycled waste by following the recommendation in the conclusion.

[Hosseingold29]

(If you adopt the author's recommendation to purchase products packaged in containers with lower numbers,)

Bingo !
Who has said the author stated go and buy lower number plastics ?
The author has said just by not purchasing the higher numbers , we dont know anything about the alternative, thus I think this question is totally wrong! !

[jimmy1115]

Dear admins,

While I understand why C is correct- as preventing from buying higher codes products will thus prevent their chances of getting recycled again and simultaneously demand the production of new low-code products.

I am having some trouble understanding why (A) is incorrect. If we assume A is true, it means the manufacturer will have incentives to not recycle anything at all, simply produce new plastic containers all the time, irrespective of whether they are recyclable or not. Then under this situation, wouldn't that undermine the conclusion that 'consumer preventing from buying high code products, can reduce unrecycled waste' ? because irrespective of what kind of products (whether low or high codes) consumers buy, it would nothave any effects on the proportion of unrecycled waste, as manufacturers wouldn't recycle them anyways.

Thank you so much

Best

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Dear admins,

While I understand why C is correct- as preventing from buying higher codes products will thus prevent their chances of getting recycled again and simultaneously demand the production of new low-code products.

I am having some trouble understanding why (A) is incorrect. If we assume A is true, it means the manufacturer will have incentives to not recycle anything at all, simply produce new plastic containers all the time, irrespective of whether they are recyclable or not. Then under this situation, wouldn't that undermine the conclusion that 'consumer preventing from buying high code products, can reduce unrecycled waste' ? because irrespective of what kind of products (whether low or high codes) consumers buy, it would nothave any effects on the proportion of unrecycled waste, as manufacturers wouldn't recycle them anyways.

Thank you so much

Best

Hi Jimmy,

Thanks for the post! Please review the official explanation on page 1 of this thread for why A is incorrect.

In addition, please review the following instructor responses in this discussion that also touch on answer choice A:

viewtopic.php?p=42480#p42480
viewtopic.php?p=64564#p64564

Let us know if this helps!

Thanks!

[jimmy1115]

Dear Stephanie,

thank you for your reply, the previous post was still the confusion I had after I read these explanations, would be much appreciated if you could help me clarify it based on my understanding.

thank you again !

[Robert Carroll]

jimmy,

Your description of answer choice (A) isn't accurate. You say "it means the manufacturer will have incentives to not recycle anything at all, simply produce new plastic containers all the time, irrespective of whether they are recyclable or not." Well, answer choice (A) says "currently", so the absolute, timeless interpretation you seem to give to the answer isn't true here. I think that's a further problem because the stimulus's conclusion already talks about consumers' making a long-term change. If incentives are currently against that idea's working, that doesn't really say anything whatsoever about the long term. If what you meant was about the short term, then, of course, that's a fatal problem for the answer anyway.

Answer choice (A) also seem bad to me because the entire point of the stimulus is to refuse to purchase products in high-numbered plastic containers. Low numbers are easier to recycle; high are harder. If consumers behave in such a way that high-numbered plastics aren't even used much anymore, then that might affect the cost-benefit analysis of recycling vs producing new plastic. So the fact in answer choice (A) might easily be one changed by the very behavior the author recommends in the conclusion.

Robert Carroll