B.

B finds loophole in the evidence :
Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate.

on basis of which legislator making decision.

can u guys further explain this one, im not sure i understand. thanks!

[quote="joemama142000"]The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmentally preferable alternative to the prevailing practices of incineration and of dumping in landfills. Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate. A state legislator proposes that communities should therefore be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?

A) Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizens participation ranging from 30% in some communities to 80% in others.

B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20% of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price.

C) Existing recycling programs have had recurrent difficulties finding purchasers for their materials usually because of quantities too small to permit cost effective pickup and transportation.

D) Some of the materials that can be recycled are the very materials that, when incinerated, produce the least pollution

E) Many of the materials that cannot be recycled are also difficult to incinerate.[/quote]
------
A-wrong-irrelevant. The fact that previous programs were voluntary doesn't expose a flaw in the proposal
B-Seems OK. The politician has 2 proposals. Adopt a program. Ensure 50% recycling. Both these are based on existing programs. If we can show that the nature of the existing programs is such that it calls into question the proposals, our job is done. A restriction of 20% has been put in for some reason and calls into question the 50% proposal. Also there is no evidence showing that these restrictions can be overcome in the next five years.
C-Wrong-This actually refutes the evidence that existing programs have proven profitable.
D-Wrong- Some? What about the others?
E-Irrelevant. We are not concerned with those that cannot be recycled/incinerated.

a) Out of scope
b) Out of scope
c) Attacks the evidence saying that recycling is profitable
d) Pollution has nothing to do with the argument
e) Out of scope

Good point. i hear ya rigger. But the answer is B.

I will try my luck with C.
I can not cancel out C.

What is the OA.
_________________

hey ya......