Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage con

Critical thinking implies any program need to be profitable for sustainable continuance. It is known world universally that recycling is one of the profitable strategies. It is not enthusiasm that will be the mainstay of any project. Let us take this case; the passage says that there are states without deposit law, but still continuing to recycle beverages, along with many others. One might enthusiastic to start with any schemes, but would not bother a while later, if they were to lose money consistently. So I would reckon that the deposit law countries were losing in spite of the incentives on cans, sand hence they are lagging behind other countries.

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program? --looks like it is the best choice -it is all in the money, you see
B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers? …. Preference is irrelevant here.
C) When the five-cent deposit programs were implemented, were the citizens of the states that began programs as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states? ---- Initial enthusiasm is not a valid reason for project's sustenance
D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers? --- does not take into account the other comprehensive recycling programs
E) were the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding? ------ funding cane compared on such wide ranging factors. Funding can be compared only between bottle recycling vs. bottle recycling and not with steel, paper or plastics. Irrelevant comparison

A program that has plenty of profit overall has the resilience to carry other less profitable projects associated with it. This is what is happening in Aluminum recycling. So, over a period, comprehensive programs that would include aluminum recycling, would sustain and win over bottle recycling programs that are run exclusively

A) Bottle deposit programs are increasingly unpopular in state legislatures and may soon be replaced with comprehensive recycling programs. ---state legislature is an unnecessary insinuation in the context.

B) The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used. ----does not help to resolve the paradox

C) Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect. --- If it were true, the finding turns irrelevant

D) Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive recycling program, instead of recycled separately; they pay for the costs of the entire program. --- Must be the reason, why comprehensive programs are over performing compared to stand-alone bottle recycling

E) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs. --- Contra to the professed findings of the study

D is the best

I think the correct Answer should be D . Here's why:

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program? Incorrect This is not relevant to evaluate the argument

B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers?Incorrect The preference of the citizens doesnt matter to the relevance of argument.

C) When the five-cent deposit programs were implemented, were the citizens of the states that began programs as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states?Incorrect Enthusiasm of the citizens is not relevant here

D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?Correct If we take this choice to extremes that no of containers were not same then it weakens the conclusion that recycling programs for states which did not implement five cent program were more successful , on the other hand if the number were same then it strengthens the argument that yes states without 5 cent program were more successful.


E) Were the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding? Incorrect Funding is not relevant here.




Thanks
AK
Please press Kudos for the encouragement

:Analysis:

State X: On beverage (plastic, glass and aluminum) containers consumer need to submit 5 cents as per law
: The 5 cents can be returned to get back their hard earned money back

State O (Others): Have no such program as state X


Effectiveness of recycling program (Paper + Plastic + Steel + Beverages waste):

State O > State X

Pre thinking:

So what could be most critical possibilities to analyses this argument. I though of following possibilities:

(a) There could be less amount of recyclable waste in state O

(b) There could be high amount of recyclable waste (other than beverages), which could be managed in much better way

(C) Citizens of state O are actually more environmental friendly and hence willing to participate in recycling irrespective of the financial incentives

Hmn...So choice C is looking good for me.

Moreover earlier I got confused with (D) but comparable purchases does not necessarily mean that it will generate similar proportion of waste. Or we can not derive any correlation what so ever.

Hope it helps.

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminum cans are recycled. This is, the advocates say, because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

The answer to which of the following questions would be most useful in analyzing the significance of the study referenced above?

We require a question that will supply us an answer that will help us figure out why the states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs.

A) Did any of the states surveyed lose revenue on the bottle deposit program?
Revenue is irrelevant to the implementation of the recycling programs.

B) Do the citizens of the states that were studied prefer five-cent redemption programs on beverage containers?
We only care about why the states that did have a bottle deposit were not recycling as much as the states without the bottle deposits.

C) When the five-cent deposit programs were implemented, were the citizens of the states that began programs as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states?
States who are enthusiastic about recycling and don't have bottle deposits may recycle more than states who don't like to recycle but have a bottle deposit program.

D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?
The success isn't measured by the quantity of recyclables but by the rate of beverage containers that become recycled.

E) Where the bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs given equal funding?
Irrelevant comparison. The bottle deposit and comprehensive recycling programs are not the same and thus can not be compared.

Answer should be C, imo.

What I did was, focused on the question stem. It says, most useful in analyzing the significance of the study referenced above. So now I know what I'm looking for in the argument (this argument is very, very dense!)

A - Irrelevant. We are not concerned whether any states lost any revenue. If 1 of the states loses revenue and the others don't, this won't align with the argument.
B - Irrelevant. Citizens' preference is not in question.
C - Sort of relevant. If the citizens were less enthusiastic about the bottle deposit law/program, the number of people using the program would be fewer. Hence, the program wouldn't be as successful.
D - Irrelevant. Comparable number isn't an indication.
E - Same as above.

Advocate argument : five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection

Reason : they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminium cans are recycled. This is, the advocates say, because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities.

Author Counter argument :
However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

Counter argument of author based on the assumption that both the states have similar conditions.

Question is evaluation based. We need to evaluate the argument by which yes/no will counter/support either author or advocate statement.


Answer analysis :

A. out of scope revenue is not part of argument
B. Preference is not the parameter , we need to evaluate whether the law is necessary or not
C. Correct
D. Number of recycle again not the parameter of evaluation. Yes/ No to the argument will not effect either author or Advocate argument
E. Funding again is Out of scope

Lets try to break it down a lil bit..

suppose there are 100 bottles worth of beverage.. success rate of incentive driven suppose 100% and 50% for non incentive.
now, all 100 bottles worth of beverages goes back for recycling. and 50 in case for non incentive.
Now, comprehensive programme case - suppose there are 5 categories of recycling. If its a comparable distribution of 100 bottles worth of beverage , then it becomes 20 each for the 5 categories. Now, only incentive is for bottles ones.. 100% success gives 20 bottles returned, but for the non incentive one, as per 50 percent success assumed it becomes 50 bottles and hence more successful overall.

So, comprehensive distribution defeats incentive when its comparable distribution..

So it should be D .

D) Did citizens of the states with and without bottle deposit programs purchase comparable numbers of beverages in plastic, glass and aluminum containers?

is wrong because it is about purchasing beverages , its not talking about the main point i.e. recycle

I was stuck between C and D and eliminated D on following grounds.

D introduced 'numbers' and this is the red flag. The argument never spoke about number of bottles. But yes, it DID speak about 'willingness' of people- 'five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities'. So, numbers looses points against willingness.

Further, talking about 'number of bottles' as in D, this info can go either way, its not sufficient to conclude anything:-

Case 1:
In state X:
Total purchased= 100
Total recycled= 75

In state O (Other):
Total purchased= 100 (comparable to X)
Total recycled= 90
Hence O is (or rather seems to be) more successful

Case 2:
In state X:
Total purchased= 100
Total recycled= 20

In state O:
Total purchased= 10 (way less than X)
Total recycled= 10
Hence O is still successful(or is it?)

The point is, we dont know what does 'more success' mean in terms of number. It can be percent/proportion/number of bottles recycled. And therefore, like in a DS question, providing 'number of bottles' is insufficient to conclude anything.

Hope the explanation makes sense.

No wonder why CR questions involving numbers are tricky

MY PRETHINKING WAS: A statement that shows that another factor was responsible for the success other than the the five-percent programme.
Something else must have played into the non-programme states in their recycling success.
C!

In an Inference question, the correct answer must be true. Accordingly, you should hold every answer choice up to that test: if it could be false, then you can eliminated it.
Choice A here is probably true, but not guaranteed: the coach says that even the most unbelievable records will LIKELY be broken, but not that they will all be broken. Note that predictions are very hard to make in Inference questions, as much like your insurance policy they're subject to the "act of god" clause - if a meteor hits the earth and wipes out humankind, then no world records will ever be broken!
Choice B is similarly incorrect: true champions know that records will likely broken, but that doesn't mean that they cannot make predictions about whether their record is one of the few that may never be broken.
Choice C may look tempting, but look back at what the Olympic champion says: "I'm not sure" the record will ever be broken. This stops short of saying "it will not be broken," so you cannot conclusively say that he is not a true champion.
Choice D goes just a bit too far, again because the coach's point is that records will likely be broken, which is a bit short of saying that all will be broken.
Choice E is correct, in large part because of the adequately-measured wording "could be broken." Since any true champion knows that a record could be broken, if a champion does not at least think that the record could be broken he then does not fit that definition of a true champion.

Could someone help to shed some light on why option C is a better option than D?

I had chosen option D for the following reasons. Please help.

1. put $ on containers - > why? -> for environmental protection -> how? -> will ensure that they are recycled
2. put $ on containers -> gives incentive -> to recycle
3. Recent study: no $ -> more comprehensive recycling programs (included paper also)

So we need something to prove why the study was valid.

Why is option C wrong?

VeritasKarishma

Can you help explain why D is correct in this question? The question stem and answer choices are different from above.

Advocates argue that five-cent bottle deposits charged on beverage containers are necessary for environmental protection because they help to ensure that plastic and glass bottles as well as aluminum cans are recycled. This is because the five-cent redemption programs provide a strong incentive to return the used containers to recycling facilities. However, a recent study found that states without a bottle deposit had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs, which include paper, plastics, and steel, in addition to the beverage containers, than did states with a bottle deposit law.

Which of the following, if true, would help explain the results of the study?

a) Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.
b) The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.
c) Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.
d) Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.
e) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.

i choose E as that is the only comparable diffrence i could see. D is not the answer because it talks about the bottles only. But C can never be the answer. Can u please explain the reasoning behind choosing C.

This question has a cause-and-effect theme, the cause being the presence of deposits and the effect being the degree success of recycling programs.

What choice (C) does is bring up the question of whether there is an additional cause of degree of success of recycling programs that has not been addressed in the discussion in the passage, enthusiasm for recycling.

Here's (C).

(C) When the five-cent deposit programs were implemented, were the citizens of the states that began programs as enthusiastic about recycling as the citizens of the other states?

If the answer to (C) is "Yes," the answer is information indicating that the study is significant, because we can use that information to rule out the possibility that the reason for the differences in degree of success of recycling programs is not the deposits but, rather, differences in degree of enthusiasm.

If the answer to (C) is "No," the answer is information indicating that the study may be less significant than it appears to be, because if the the citizens in the states that have the deposits were less enthusiastic, then this difference in enthusiasm, rather than the presence of the deposits, may explain the differences in success of the programs.

Either way, the answer to (C) helps us to evaluate the significance of the findings.

Some states have bottle deposit programs (plastic, glass, aluminium) and some don't (so some states keep a deposit when selling beverages which you get back when you return the empty bottle).
Bottle deposit programs provide strong incentive to recycle.
Now, comprehensive recycling programs were implemented (including paper, plastics and steel too)

A recent study found that states without a bottle deposit program had more success in implementing comprehensive recycling programs than did states with a bottle deposit law.
So comprehensive programs were more successful in states without bottle deposit programs than in states which have bottle deposit programs too. The comprehensive program would include paper, plastics, steel and beverage containers in states without bottle deposit programs. In states with bottle deposit programs, the beverage containers (including aluminium cans) would be returned under bottle deposit programs.

What explains this report?

a) Bottle deposit programs are less convenient for consumers and increasingly unpopular in state legislatures.
Bottle deposit programs are less convenient but provide strong financial incentives. So are people preferring financial incentives over convenience or the other way around, we don't know.
The programs are unpopular in state legislatures so fewer states may implement them in future. But it doesn't tell us anything about the success/failure of the program in existing states.

b) The level of motivation for individual consumers to recycle materials other than beverage containers remains the same regardless of which program is used.

In that case, states with bottle deposit programs should do better. More people will deposit bottles while same number will deposit other things. Does not explain the result of the study.

c) Individuals have a greater financial incentive to actively recycle beverage cans and bottles if a bottle deposit program is in effect.

In this case states with bottle deposit program should do better. Does not explain the result of the study.

d) Aluminum cans have so much value that when these cans are included in the comprehensive program, instead of recycled separately, they pay for costs of the entire comprehensive recycling program.

If aluminium cans are included in the the comprehensive program, they bring in good returns since aluminium is expensive.
If aluminium cans are a part of a separate bottle deposit program, the bottle deposit program would do well but the comprehensive program may not do well. The return from aluminium cans will not be added to the comprehensive program in this case.
This could explain why comprehensive programs are doing better in states without bottle deposit programs.

e) There are more states with bottle-deposit programs than with comprehensive recycling programs.
The number is irrelevant.

Answer (D)