Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled with a code

I would go for C
C is saying that even if the consumers were able to buy the easiest to recycle plastics, it is not going to end in a long term reduction of unrecycled plastics

I did not understand the reasoning behind option C.

Option 1:
If the consumers buy plastic product that have a high rating ( 7, 8 or 9), they are choosing to buy products that have very limited scope for recycling.

Option2:
However, if they buy plastic products that have a lower rating ( 1, 2 ... 6), they are allowing at least one iteration of recycling. When most consumers take up this practice, over time there would be multiple iterations of recycling for these products by the time the products reach a rating of 8 or 9.
This could result in a significant reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled.

On any day, option 2 reduces un-recyclable waste more than option 1 does. If so, how does this answer choice undermine the conclusion?

Can any of the experts please provide his insight?
mikemcgarry GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo broall nightblade354.

Dear GMATNinja

Why option D wrong? the cost may deter consumers from buying low grade recycled packages and forced them to buy the higher one and hence increase the waste.

I may argue that word 'often' makes the choice not as weak as choice C.

What do you think, Charles?

Thanks for your help

lemme try to explain

Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled with a code number (from 1 to 9) indicating the type or quality of the plastic. Plastics with the lowest code numbers are the easiest for recycling plants to recycle and are thus the most likely to be recycled after use rather than dumped in landfills. Plastics labeled with the highest numbers are only rarely recycled. 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.

premise: MOST disposable C's are labeled 1-9
premise: the lower the code the easy it is to recycle.
premise: high code rarely recycled

CONCLUSION : [color=#ff0000]pay close attention - 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.

: IF consumers dont PURCHASE high numbered , THEN amount of unrecycled waste reduces OVER A LONG TERM.
the author basically concludes that reduction in purchasing high numbered will lead to reduction in waste[/color]

HE IS NOT CONCERNED WHETHER CONSUMERS ACTUALLY PURCHASE THE HIGH NUMBERED OR WHETHER SOMETHING MIGHT HOLD THEM BACK.
THE AUTHOR BASICALLY USES THE TERM "CONSUMERS" TO PUT HIS CONCLUSION IN CONTEXT. AUTHOR SAY " CONSUMERS CAN MAKE" ...
WE HERE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE LATER EFFECT NOT THE CONDITION.

AUTHOR'S conclusion : REDUCTION IN PURCHASE LEADS TO REDUCTION IN WASTE.

YOUR CONCLUSION : REDUCTION WILL HAPPEN WHEN CONSUMERS REDUCE PURCHASE. >> this will lead u into thinking that reduction in waste only happen if consumers ACTUALLY reduce the purchase.


MAIN CONCLUSION IS : REDUCTION IN PURCHASE >> REDUCTION IN WASTE......

look carefully at the phrase " consumers CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN" --- the "can" accepts the scenario of consumers being deterred or unaware of high numbered. the "can" also accepts the situation in which CONSUMER KNOWS ALL.

with this in mind , now try to analyse answer choice.

Hello Mo2men,
D is out of scope / irrelevant because we are not concerned about cost - it is nowhere mentioned. the main topic is about code and plastic packages (recycled/urecycled)
cheers,
D.

As dave13 pointed out, cost isn't a factor in the argument that we're evaluating.

Even if low-code products are often more expensive than high-code packaging, consumers can still refuse to purchase high-code packaging. Nothing in the argument implies that this refusal to buy high-code packaging depends on relative price of high-code packaging. And simply stating that there is a difference in price does not tell us that consumers care about this difference. The conclusion is focused on reducing long-term waste, and (D) does nothing to weaken that conclusion.

Courtesy: PowerScore

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C)

This author discusses a system used to rank the level of recyclability of various plastics, asserting that consumers should avoid buying high numbered (and thus less readily recyclable) plastics in order to reduce the amount of waste that goes unrecycled. The correct response to this weaken question will likely show some reason to doubt the effectiveness of this advice.

Answer choice (A): The main consideration used as a basis for the author’s advice is the effort to reduce the amount of materials that go unrecycled. Thus the cost is completely irrelevant to the inquiry, and this answer choice must be incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The term “many” is extremely vague (does this mean one million? Does it mean three?), and regardless, the number of consumers currently aware of the referenced system does strengthen or weaken the argument that one should avoid the higher numbers to reduce unrecycyled materials.

Answer choice (C) is the correct answer choice. According to answer choice (C), virtually every time a plastic container is recycled, its number goes up. If you adopt the author's recommendation to purchase products packaged in containers with lower numbers, you may see some reduction in the amount of unrecycled waste, but only in the short term! Over the long run, these containers will become progressively more difficult to recycle, as their numbers will go up. Eventually, their numbers will be high enough that they will never be recycled. Thus, the preference for plastics with low numbers would only have a temporary effect. Since the conclusion is concerned with making a "long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled," answer choice (C) deals a decisive blow.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is wrong for much the same reason that answer choice (B) is incorrect. The concern is not the final price, but the amount of material that go unrecycled, so this answer choice is irrelevant and incorrect.

Answer choice (E): The point at which the higher numbers are tossed into landfills does not affect the author’s conclusion, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Plan:
Refuse to purchase packages with the highest numbers
Goal:
Long-term reduction in the amount of unrecycled waste

The correct answer must give a reason to believe that the plan will NOT lead to a reduction in the amount of unrecycled waste.

C: A plastic container almost always has a higher code number after it is recycled than it had before recycling
Here, each time a product is recycled, the result is a product with a HIGHER number.
Thus:
If a product with one of the lowest numbers is continually recycled, it will ultimately yield a product with one of the HIGHEST numbers.
Implication:
Over time, there will be an INCREASE in the number of products with the highest numbers -- products that are almost never recycled -- WEAKENING the conclusion that the amount of recycled waste will be reduced.

Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled with a code number (from 1 to 9) indicating the type or quality of the plastic. Plastics with the lowest code numbers are the easiest for recycling plants to recycle and are thus the most likely to be recycled after use rather than dumped in landfills. Plastics labeled with the highest numbers are only rarely recycled. 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.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion above?

Hi GMATNinja nightblade354

Why is B incorrect? If consumers arent aware of the grade of plastic that they are purchasing then how can anything else in the argument hold true?

Kritisood, there are two issues with (B). The first is that how many is "many"? Many means some, meaning it could be one consumer, or it could be them all. This range alone makes this answer untenable. Now, the second issue is that you are not focusing on the structure of the question. We want to reduce waste by using the number system. The argument wants us to not use higher numbers to achieve this. So we are clearly talking about those who know the number system and want to help. Our job is to weaken that position. You must work on your premises and conclusion indicators. Focus strictly on the structure: X occurs, therefore we should do Y. If you can do this, you will keep yourself on track and not get sidetracked. Lastly, if this said that all consumers do not know the number system, or most do not know, then you would have a case that that statement would weaken the argument. But as explained above, many is just a random figure used to trick people.

Dear experts is there a typo in option C of the above question? Most of the explanation mentions the reasoning for option C as "By refusing to purchase higher-numbered products, consumers are refusing to buy those very products most likely to be packaged in recycled materials! Hence, the plastics will most likely be discarded since there will be little market for recycled plastics." but nowhere in option C it states that consumers are refusing to purchase high-numbered products. Bunuel

I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but here are some thoughts!

The detail that you've mentioned isn't in answer choice (C), it's in the conclusion of the argument:



Here, the author concludes that consumers can reduce landfill waste by refusing to buy high-numbered plastic containers.

(C) undermines this conclusion, because there needs to be a demand for these high-numbered containers in order for lower-numbered plastics to be recycled. For more on why (C) is the correct answer, check out this post.

I hope that helps!

Hi @GMATNinja @KarishmaB @GMATGuruNY @AjiteshArun

I understood why (C) should be the answer, but i still don't understand why (A) is incorrect.
Below is my understanding of (A):


By refusing to purchase those products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers ----> Consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled.

Argument takes a leap from ''By refusing'' to ''making a significant long-term reduction''

This option indicates that even If Consumers keep picking the lower numbered plastics, Manufacturers won't recycle those reclyclable plastics because they do not have no financial incentives. I think, this option mocks the big leap between ''By refusing'' and ''Making a significant long-term impact'', by pointing out that JUST by refusing to take the goods, you can't make the impact.
(A) suggests that your plan cannot work, because you have not considered some another factor.
 

The statement in red is unsupported.
If consumers purchase only the lowest-numbered plastics, we are told as a PREMISE that these plastics will be the easiest to recycle, so the CURRENT cost of recycling tells us nothing about the FUTURE cost.­­­

Moreover, the argument refers not to manufacturers but to RECYCLING PLANTS.

We are given in the question: "Plastics with the lowest code numbers are the easiest for recycling plants to recycle and are thus the most likely to be recycled after use rather than dumped in landfills."

These plastics are most likely to be recycled. It doesn't mean they are getting recycled right now. The point is that they are much more likley to be recycled than teh higher numbered ones and hence better. If plastics are being recycled right now or will be in the future, the waste plastic present should be recyclable for long term benefit. 

Hence option (A) about the current cost of recycling is irrelevant. 
­­

 

Plastic containers are now labelled 1 - 9. Low numbers are easiest to recycle. High numbers are not and need to be dumped in landfills. 

Conclusion: Consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled, therefore, by refusing to purchase highest codes.

So the logic is simple. Low codes are easy to recycle, high codes are not. So for a significant long-term reduction in plastics that go in landfills, don't buy high codes. What will weaken this?

(A) The cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling discarded plastics is currently higher than the cost of manufacturing new plastics from virgin materials.

The current cost of recycling is is irrelevant. We want that for long term benefit, most plastic consumed today should be that which is recyclable. 
How much of it are we actually recycling today, doesn't matter. In any case, we ar elikely recycling some because the argument says "Plastics labeled with the highest numbers are only rarely recycled." Well then, perhaps the lowest codes are getting at least somewhat recycled. In any case, we have the long term perspective in mind. 

(B) Many consumers are unaware of the codes that are stamped on the plastic containers.

Whether consumers know it yet or not is irrelevant. We want to find that if consumer do start refusing to buy high number plastics, it may not have the desired effect.  

(C) A plastic container almost always has a higher code number after it is recycled than it had before recycling because the recycling process causes a degradation of the quality of the plastic.

This tells us that after gettign recycled, a low number plastic becomes high number plastic. Here is the problem then - if people refuse to buy high number plastic, there would be no use of recycling plastic. The point of recycling is reusing. If people do not want to reuse, then any kind of recycling will stop. Then in the long term, this action will likely have a detrimental impact instead. 

(D) Products packaged in plastics with the lowest code numbers are often more expensive than those packaged in the higher-numbered plastics.

Cost is irrelevant. 

(E) 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.

Irrelevant. In any case it tells us that higher numbered codes are refused by recyclers sometimes. So it is in line with the argument. 

Answer (C)
­­