Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured pickup

Question

Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured pickup of recyclables every other week, was too costly. The city claims that its new program, which features weekly pickup, will be more cost effective, since the greater the volume of recyclables collected per year, the more revenue the city gains from selling the recyclables. But this is absurd. People will put out the same volume of recyclables overall; it will just be spread out over a greater number of pickups.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the editor's argument?

(A) The cost of collecting and disposing of general trash has been less than the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables, and this is still likely to be the case under the new recycling program.

(B) Even if the volume of collected recyclables increases, that increase might not be enough to make the recycling program cost effective.

(C) Because the volume of recyclables people accumulate during a week is less than what they accumulate during two weeks, the city expects a recyclables pickup to take less time under the new program.

(D) A weekly schedule for recyclables pickup is substantially easier for people to follow and adhere to than is a schedule of pickups every other week.

(E) Because of the increase in the number of pickups under the new program, the amount charged by the contractor that collects the city's recyclables will increase significantly.

siddharthkapoor · Answer

pikolo2510 · Answer

Conclusion : - People will put the same volume of recyclables overall

Pre-thinking : - We need to weaken the above. What if weekly pickup benefits the people and they are able to collect more recyclables ?

(A) The cost of collecting and disposing of general trash has been less than the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables, and this is still likely to be the case under the new recycling program. --> We are not talking about the cost involved in disposing general trash vs recyclables. OUT

(B) Even if the volume of collected recyclables increases, that increase might not be enough to make the recycling program cost effective. --> Same as A, we are not talking above the cost involved. OUT

(C) Because the volume of recyclables people accumulate during a week is less than what they accumulate during two weeks, the city expects a recyclables pickup to take less time under the new program. --> We do not want to know if it takes less time or more time. OUT

(D) A weekly schedule for recyclables pickup is substantially easier for people to follow and adhere to than is a schedule of pickups every other week. --> This option suggests the weekly schedule will help the people to dispose recyclables. Hence people need not remember the schedule of pick ups and will dispose more recyclables every week. This weakens the argument. CORRECT

(E) Because of the increase in the number of pickups under the new program, the amount charged by the contractor that collects the city's recyclables will increase significantly. --> Again, we are not concerned about the cost involved here. OUT

CEdward · Answer

I am not entirely convinced that it's D...it doesn't GUARANTEE that residents will dispose of more recyclables. In fact, the possibility that the editor cites still stands. Perhaps the amount disposed of still stays the same...

C suggests that perhaps the city can save on labour costs - thereby tackling the cost portion of the 'cost effectiveness'...

C suggests that perhaps the city can save on labour costs - thereby tackling the cost portion of the 'cost effectiveness'...

Pablopikachu · Answer

@Bunuel @Karishma @VeritasPrep - cud u pls explain ? The solution is not very convincing

Elite097 · Answer

City’s Claim: The new weekly recycling program will be more cost-effective because collecting more recyclables leads to higher revenue.
Editor’s Counterargument: The total volume of recyclables won’t increase—it will just be spread out over more frequent pickups. Therefore, the city’s claim is absurd.
To weaken the editor’s argument, we need to show that the total volume of recyclables might actually increase under the new system.

Why (D) is Correct
"(D) A weekly schedule for recyclables pickup is substantially easier for people to follow and adhere to than is a schedule of pickups every other week."
If people find the new schedule easier to follow, they might recycle more often instead of throwing recyclables into regular trash when they miss a pickup.
This would increase the total volume of recyclables collected, which directly weakens the editor’s argument that the volume will remain the same.
Why the Other Choices Are Wrong
(A) The cost of collecting and disposing of general trash has been less than the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables, and this is still likely to be the case under the new recycling program.
Irrelevant. The argument is about whether the new program increases recyclables collected, not about how recyclables compare to general trash in cost.
(B) Even if the volume of collected recyclables increases, that increase might not be enough to make the recycling program cost effective.
This actually strengthens the editor’s argument by suggesting that even if more recyclables are collected, the program might still not be cost-effective.
The editor is saying the volume won’t increase, so we need to attack that assumption, not question cost-effectiveness.
(C) Because the volume of recyclables people accumulate during a week is less than what they accumulate during two weeks, the city expects a recyclables pickup to take less time under the new program.
Irrelevant. The argument is about whether people will recycle more, not about how long pickup takes.
(E) Because of the increase in the number of pickups under the new program, the amount charged by the contractor that collects the city's recyclables will increase significantly.
This actually strengthens the editor’s argument!
If costs increase, it supports the idea that the new program won’t be more cost-effective.

adarsh1508 · Answer

Premise:  bi-weekly pickup is expensive, hence, city is recommending weekly pikcup where they will be able to pickup more recyclables hence more revenue

Conclusion:  This notion is absurd as the volume of recyclabes will continue to remain the same so no change in profits

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the editor's argument?

(A) The cost of collecting and disposing of general trash has been less than the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables, and this is still likely to be the case under the new recycling program. -  Trap 1, oppositie answer.

(B) Even if the volume of collected recyclables increases, that increase might not be enough to make the recycling program cost effective. -  Trap 1, opposite answer

(C) Because the volume of recyclables people accumulate during a week is less than what they accumulate during two weeks, the city expects a recyclables pickup to take less time under the new program. -  Trap 3, Out of scope

(D) A weekly schedule for recyclables pickup is substantially easier for people to follow and adhere to than is a schedule of pickups every other week. -   This answer helps support the premise that more volume of recyclables will be collected, hence more revnue.

(E) Because of the increase in the number of pickups under the new program, the amount charged by the contractor that collects the city's recyclables will increase significantly. -  Trap 1, Opposite answer

Raman109 · Answer

Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured pickup of recyclables every other week, was too costly. - Background Info.

The city claims that its new program, which features weekly pickup, will be more cost effective, since the greater the volume of recyclables collected per year, the more revenue the city gains from selling the recyclables. -Premise.

But this is absurd. - Conclusion

People will put out the same volume of recyclables overall; it will just be spread out over a greater number of pickups. - Claim, which supports the conclusion. Mind you, this is not a fact, its a claim which can be challenged.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the editor's argument?

(A) The cost of collecting and disposing of general trash has been less than the cost of collecting and disposing of recyclables, and this is still likely to be the case under the new recycling program. - out of scope

(B) Even if the volume of collected recyclables increases, that increase might not be enough to make the recycling program cost effective. - out of scope.

(C) Because the volume of recyclables people accumulate during a week is less than what they accumulate during two weeks, the city expects a recyclables pickup to take less time under the new program. - time is out of scope.

(D) A weekly schedule for recyclables pickup is substantially easier for people to follow and adhere to than is a schedule of pickups every other week. - This challenges Editor's claim in a way that there may be a possibility that volume of recyclables can increase.

(E) Because of the increase in the number of pickups under the new program, the amount charged by the contractor that collects the city's recyclables will increase significantly. - amount is out of scope.

Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured pickup

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Editor: The city's previous recycling program, which featured pickup

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards