jyotsnamahajan wrote:
VeritasKarishmaCan 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.
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)