Q7 - Waste management companies, which collect

[stackoutawinner]

I've gone through this question three times, missed it twice and just got it right this last time. In my review, however, I can't sincerely justify the correct answer.

Here's why:
1. % of disposal plastic in the garbage is going up
2. Therefore, attempts to diminish the amount of plastics that people discard are failing

This is a weaken question. The two ways to weaken are to attack an assumption and add a counter premise.

The correct answer, D states that an increasing proportion of the paper, glass, and metal cans is now being recycled.

The conclusion specifically called for "decrease the amount of PLASTIC" - the argument has nothing to do with paper, glass, or metal!! If the conclusion would have said "attempts to recycle" instead of attempts to decrease plastic, then okay... but otherwise, I'm not quite sure how this answer actually weakens the argument.

I do feel that there is a flaw in the argument - if the % of DISPOSABLE plastic is going up, the cause could be because the overall percentage of goods sold containing this type of plastic has risen. In that case, it could still be possible to see an increase in the ABSOLUTE amount of plastic recycled while still seeing an increase in the percentage in the trash. There's also some equivocation regarding disposal plastic and just regular plastic.

This makes two questions on this exam that I'm arguing with - and that means I've missed something or am not aware of something VERY important.

I need help to find the flaw in my own reasoning!

Thanks a bunch for your help

[stackoutawinner]

Okay, I think I (sort of) have it...

If people begin recycling more paper, glass, and metal, it means these items are appearing in the trash less frequently. If people recycle these items MORE than they do plastics, then it would mean the RATIO of plastics thrown away could increase even though the absolute amount of plastic recycled could go up as well.

This is why I post on the board... it helps to learn LR having to articulate, and now I feel like a jackass having not realized the implication of this answer in the first place. It's like realizing I'm Homer Simpson.

But if I missed something here, feel free to chime in.

[dan]

Hey Stacks. I think you're getting this. Let me give an example just to solidify it. Consider the following hypothetical comparison of 1999 to 2009:

1999:
Amount in pounds of paper, glass, metal cans: 60
Amount in pounds of plastic: 40
Total amount in pounds of material picked up by waste companies (60 + 40): 100

So, percentage of plastics is 40%.

2009:
Amount in pounds of paper, glass, metal cans: 10
Amount in pounds of plastic: 30
Total amount in pounds of material picked up by waste companies (10 + 30): 40

The AMOUNT of plastic has gone down, but the PERCENTAGE has gone up. It's now 75% of the total.

If large amounts of paper, glass, and metal are being recycled, then less and less of it is being picked up by waste companies. This could create a situation where the AMOUNT of plastic decreases while the PERCENTAGE of plastic increases. Thus, it would be incorrect to conclude with certainty that a higher percentage of plastic means that attempts to reduce the amount of plastic haven't worked. (D) weakens the argument.

This sort of thing is very common on the LSAT. They often try to get you to confuse raw amount with percentage. They are not the same. Learn to spot "percentage" and "amount" as important cues.

Hope that helps!

dan

[stackoutawinner]

Thanks Dan. You outlined what I was trying to say in my second post... except you need to include the *possibility* that in the 2009 scenario, the total amount of pounds could be 39 (or even less) - the PERCENTAGE went up, but the amount went down, thus weakening the argument that the efforts are not working.

Often times on the LSAT, the weaken question will introduce something and they leave it to you to figure out how that *might* impact the argument. If they said "total pounds went from 40 to 39" then most everyone would get it right... so instead they say "more glass and metal are being recycled" - a perfectly disguised correct answer because it LOOKS irrelevant but has an important ramification.

I'm now on the look out for percentage/absolute arguments and feel like I'm going to fare much better as a result of my homer simpson realizations.

Thanks again Dan.

[dan]

Agreed. Thanks for pointing this out. I've just edited my original example -- the new numbers show a decrease in the amount of plastic.

Thanks,
dan

[yusangmin]

hello im aware there was another post on this question but i wasnt sure if
it would notify you if i just replied in that thread. If it actually does, i apologize
for creating another thread.

ok so here goes. i understand the reasoning now.
however i just have a qualm about one of the answer choices.

its B.

ok so if PERCENTAGE of plastic went up, and he concludes total amounts have not decreased. Here is what answer choice B says

(b) although many plastics are recycleable, most of the plastics disposed of by waste management companies are not.

is this saying that most of the plastics that are given to waste management companies IN THE FIRST PLACE are ones that are not recyclable?

because when i initially read it i thought ok, most of these plastics that are being given to these companies are not recyclable....so WHAT IF, people started recycling more of the plastics, and then just gave the remaining to waste management companies. then the amount that would have given without recycling would actually go down. Actually now that im starting to type this out here I feel like this is a wacky answer choice.
So what im saying is what if people actually are giving less than they would have had they not recycled? so actually, the amount HAS gone down. is that too much of a stretch because maybe the amount still hasnt gone down since the last time either way?
is this also bad because it doesnt bother the whole percentages to absolute thing? which is obviously what they were trying to trick us with.

and what exactly is this saying? as i asked. is it saying that most plastics that are given to these companies are always not recyclable, that this is how they operate? or that it just happens to be like that?


also E is annoying, it just seems really out there and unrelated but could you please what kind of implication it has? i just cant even comprehend what kind of implications it has, although obviously it doesnt weaken the argument.

also, i do understand why the right one is right. thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I can see why answer choice (B) is causing problems for you. If you read it as discussing the plastics that are collected by waste management companies, then you're line of reasoning could pose a serious threat to the conclusion of the argument. However, the waste management companies only collect waste for disposal in landfills and incineration plants - not recyclables!

So, answer choice (B) does not tell us anything about some sort of change in the amount of plastics collected by waste management companies. Instead it discusses the proportion of plastics in general that end up collected by waste management companies.

The other answer choice you mentioned you'd like explained is (E). I think the best way to read it is just skip over everything before the comma. Who cares what percentage of products use plastic packaging. The key is that the overall amount of plastic being manufactured has remained unchanged. This is irrelevant to the argument, because much of that plastic could be recycled rather than "throw[n] away in the garbage."

Sometimes it's tough to see what answer choices mean. One thing I've seen a lot of is someone choosing an answer because they don't want to admit to themselves that they don't know what it means. Sometimes (not in this case), answer choices are simply nonsensical.

Good luck!

[yusangmin]

ooooooooooooooooooooh * face palm *

thanks so much! you just pointed out something i completely looked over. CRAP

thanks a lot seriously, appreciate it

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Hey Stacks. I think you're getting this. Let me give an example just to solidify it. Consider the following hypothetical comparison of 1999 to 2009:

1999:
Amount in pounds of paper, glass, metal cans: 60
Amount in pounds of plastic: 40
Total amount in pounds of material picked up by waste companies (60 + 40): 100

So, percentage of plastics is 40%.

2009:
Amount in pounds of paper, glass, metal cans: 10
Amount in pounds of plastic: 30
Total amount in pounds of material picked up by waste companies (10 + 30): 40

The AMOUNT of plastic has gone down, but the PERCENTAGE has gone up. It's now 75% of the total.

If large amounts of paper, glass, and metal are being recycled, then less and less of it is being picked up by waste companies. This could create a situation where the AMOUNT of plastic decreases while the PERCENTAGE of plastic increases. Thus, it would be incorrect to conclude with certainty that a higher percentage of plastic means that attempts to reduce the amount of plastic haven't worked. (D) weakens the argument.

This sort of thing is very common on the LSAT. They often try to get you to confuse raw amount with percentage. They are not the same. Learn to spot "percentage" and "amount" as important cues.

Hope that helps!

dan

Dan - What about this case :

Previously:

Total Garbage = 100
Plastic = 20 (20%)
Other = 80 (80%)


Now
Total Garbage = 80
Plastic = 60(75%)
Other = 20 (25%)

In above case, % is increasing and the number of plastics are also increasing. Hence, this choice could also be a strengthener.

Correct? Please help me

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

Lets consider what our argument truly is.

The fact that the percentage of plastic is increasing in their handles means that the attempts of decreasing the amount of plastic people throw away are failing.

Does that conclusion necessarily follow? Must it be true that those attempts are failing simply because the percentage of plastic in the handling is increasing?

What if it were true that paper, glass, and metal cans that were included in the handling are not any longer.

This would give us a situation of explaining the increase of plastic without their being an increase in the amount of plastic.

So while it is true that you gave an example that could strengthen the argument with that information, that does not take away the fact that you can also weaken the argument as well.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

I have a quick question.

While solving this question, I thought that a good way to weaken this question would be to say that the 'total number of waste materials' has reduced. However, the correct answer choice talks about the proportion of non-plastic material getting reduced.

Can you please suggest some other ways how we could weaken it?

Here's what I coudl think of:
-Total number of waste materials are getting reduced
-Total number of non-plastic materials are reducing
-Proportion of non-plastic material is reducing (which is actually the answer choice printed above)

The reason why I have asked the above question is that I want to "brainstorm" the number of ways we can weaken these questions.

Your kind reply would be greatly appreciated because I am relatively weak on PErcent/Number problems. Please help me

Appreciate your help. It will help me to grasp %/# concept.


Thanks