The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen

The proposal to require communities to adopt recycling and reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years may not be advisable if there is evidence that contradicts the benefits of recycling or suggests significant challenges in implementing the proposal.

Option (B) is a limitation of the existing recycling programs and does not directly question the advisability of implementing the proposal.

Option (D) suggests that some materials that can be recycled are better suited for incineration. This information may not necessarily undermine the environmental benefits of recycling, but it does suggest that recycling may not always be the most effective solution.

Option (E) suggests that incineration may also have challenges in handling certain materials, but it does not directly question the advisability of implementing the proposal.

Option (A) suggests that the level of citizen participation in existing recycling programs varies widely. This information implies that there may be challenges in achieving the required level of participation to meet the 50 percent target within the proposed timeframe. Therefore, option (A) is the best answer.

Option (C) suggests that existing recycling programs have difficulties finding purchasers for their materials. This information may also pose challenges in implementing the proposal, but it does not directly question the advisability of the proposal.

Therefore, the most serious challenge to the proposal is option (A).

A says - Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizen participation ranging from 30 percent in some communities to 80 percent in others. - This does nothing call into question the advisability of implementing the proposal. This provides some info only. Good to know.

On the flip side (B) says - Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price. - This weaken the point of recycling 50% in which case the processed waste will not match in quality and price and hence not be profitable as thought. So this clearly weakens the state legislatures proposal.

(B) is our answer.

GMATIntensive KarishmaB
I am not convinced of the reasons for eliminating A in favor of B. These are my reasons.

The argument (is short) is: Recycling is better for the environment, recycling has been done profitably before, so now everyone should recycle 50% of all solid waste.
We are looking for a weakener. The question stem specifically says the weakener should question the advisability of implementing the proposal

Now, according to me, neither A or B questions the advisability (i.e. wisdom/ whether it's sensible) of the proposal completely. Because neither of them address the environmental impact aspect for the arguement. (So I feel both of them are BAD options) But let's set that aside for a moment and assume we are addressing only the financial/profitability aspects.

option A says: you are looking at other programs that were profitable, but you are forgetting they were voluntary. So (some) people went out of their way to do this thing.
What can we infer? If we force this in other communities, then people may not be willing to be as helpful. If these people were indeed like the people who we are looking at for inspiration, these communities would probably already have such voluntary recycling facilities established.
Now how might this affect the profit margins? Well, we may have to provide (financial) incentive to people to actually dispose of their solid wastes in a manner conducive to recycling. We may need to provide transportation costs to get the wastes from their point of origination to the recycling centers. In short, anything that's voluntary is typically cheaper than an equivalent thing that isn't. IT WILL AFFECT MARGINS.

now option B gives us reason to believe the margins will be affected as well, I have no problem with that. But it does so in a vague way. It says only 20% of the recycled material can match processed raw materials in quality and price. Ok good for them, but so what? Does it mean the rest of it (that doesn't match the quality and price) is actually less profitable? No, we don't. It could be that they are worse quality and lower price but also, it takes WAY LESS TO PRODUCE in the first place. so even at lower prices, it gives higher profits.
Also, if we are really looking to push the issue and be literal, "only 20 percent can match" doesn't mean the "80% is worse". It can also mean "80% is better". All we are told is they aren't the same. Now, I recognize no one speaks in this way, and if this were a real answer on the GMAT I will be really pissed and reconsider the importance of GMAT, so I won't put too much weight to this (BAD) argument, but I just wanted to point out in the strictest literal sense this is possible.

But going back to the original question I had,
Why is option B better than option A?

The question is fine and so are all the options. What you need to do is look at it from real-life perspective. When a manager is looking for a solution for a specific problem, he needs to keep real life constraints in mind and cannot make do with idealism.

Recycling, in essence is using waste products to make fresh usable items. So, waste products (used and thrown away now) would be taken off the street and re-processed to make reusable. These would then be used by manufacturers to make products again which people will buy and use again (the bucket example I gave above)

What if the re-processed raw material is not unto the mark to make fresh products again? If it is worse quality and higher priced than fresh raw material (never used before), why will the manufacturer use recycled material? No, he will just use fresh raw material to make his products. Even if you force the manufacturer to use it, people will not buy goods at lower quality and higher price. A free economy will not support it.

Option (B) says that only 20% of re-processed material matches raw material in quality and price. So other 80% is lower quality and higher price. Then manufacturers will obviously use raw material and not this 80% re-processed material. Hence you will not find any use for this 80% re-processed material.
It will stay a waste (and will likely go to landfills) and you would have wasted money on re-processing it unnecessarily. Hence option (B) makes sense.
If recycling is not possible for this 80% material, how will you do it even if it is good for the environment?

Option (A) is incorrect. We cannot assume that if it becomes mandatory to recycle, people will not recycle. It's the reverse and no, Govts don't give positive re-inforcements to make people adhere to laws. They give people punishment if they do not adhere to laws. They will not be incentivising; they will be taking legal action against those who will not do it. Since most people live within the bounds of law, one can expect most people to recycle if it is made mandatory. It doesn't matter whether they are happy about it or not.
Also, even if 30% to 80% people recycle in different regions, what percent of the solid waste is actually getting recycled, we don't know. These people recycling could be the ones minimising waste in the first place and hence their waste could be responsible for say only 20% of the solid waste. Even if in some communities number of people recycling is proportional to the amount of product recycled, it is certainly less than 50% overall and that is why the proposal to target 50%.
Option (A) does not weaken the proposal.

In option A - One half is already doing 80%, and the other 30%. We need to work on increasing 30% to 50% - this is in no way a weakner - it's all going in a positive direction toward meeting the plan.

In Option B - If the production capacity is restricted to 20% unless there is something in the plan to increase that, the plan seems nonviable. It's as good as saying, let's increase the inventory of goods to produce 1000 units in 5 days with a production line peak capacity of 10 final units per day—A useless plan.

Option C - With an increase in more products to be recycled, this obstruction can be solved.

Option D - Some can be at least 2, not relevant. Moreover, here, even better - no pollution.

Option E - Not relevant. We are here concerned about materials that can be recycled.

Recycling is preferable to incineration and dumping in landfills.
Recycling is profitable too.

Proposal: Legislator proposes that communities should be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

We need to question the proposal i.e. what would question the advisability of implementing the proposal? The thing that comes to my mind is that a 50% limit has been set. What if 50% things are not recyclable?

hence B

Hello

In my opinion, Option B is correct because of a different reason than the one mentioned in the entire thread.
Option B says that " Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price."

The "that 20 percent of solid waste that when reprocessed can match price" means that only 20% of all the solid wastes are profitable or breakeven and recycling is only possible/unrestricted to that 20% chunk. Rest of the 80% is probably profitable since it cannot match processed raw materials in quality and price.

Therefore, if only 20% of all solid wastes are profitable or breakevening, just asking communities to increase recycling doesnt make sense. What if the majority of the waste that the communities generate fall into the 80% non profitable type.

Hence, B weakens the advise.

question is focused on profitability and the plan's effectiveness to achieve it.
B) is the only option that says it cannot be done as a lot of the addition to the recycling cannot be used or sold as other finished quality products.

Confused bw b and c - chose c ; dont understand why b

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.

given env preferable and profitable -> 50 % should be done

prethinking 50% recycling is not profitable

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 citizen participation ranging from 30 percent in some communities to 80 percent in others.

(B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price. (in line with our prethinking)

(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.