Last year all refuse collected by Shelbyville city services was incine

Last year all refuse collected by Shelbyville city services was incinerated. This incineration generated a large quantity of residual ash. In order to reduce the amount of residual ash Shelbyville generates this year to half of last year's total, the city has revamped its collection program. This year city services will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated to half of last year's number.

P: Last year all of the refuse collected was incinerated which led to a large quantity of ash
P: Shelbyville revamped its collection program to reduce the ash to half of last year’s total
C: Shelbyville will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce the # of truckloads to be incinerated to half

Which of the following is required for the revamped collection program to achieve its aim?

(A) This year, no materials that city services could separate for recycling will be incinerated.

Argument still works…we can still see a reduction in the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated.

(B) Separating recyclable materials from materials to be incinerated will cost Shelbyville less than half what it cost last year to dispose of the residual ash.

No. This presumably strengthens the argument, but the passage won’t break even if this were not true. We don’t have any specific details about the city’s financial capacity.

(C) Refuse collected by city services will contain a larger proportion of recyclable materials this year than it did last year.

No. The key here is to focus on the word proportion. It’s really not clear which way this choice takes us. For example, you could have a larger proportion of recyclables and yet the absolute amount of refuse collected could be higher. On the other hand, you could have a larger proportion of recyclables and less refuse.

(D) The refuse incinerated this year will generate no more residual ash per truckload incinerated than did the refuse incinerated last year.

Correct. Negating this reveals something that would destroy the argument all together. The goal of the revamped collection program is to reduce the quantity of residual ash. If it turns out that their program actually leads to the production of more residual ash, then there’s no reason to think that this year’s total will be half than that of last year’s.

(E) The total quantity of refuse collected by Shelbyville city service's this year will be no greater than that collected last year.

I wasn’t particularly sure what to make of this, my thinking was that if the total amount of refuse increased irrespective of the fact that the number of trucks is cut in half, then shouldn’t the total amount of ash increase?

GMATNinja What do you think about my reasoning for E?