It is wrong to waste our natural

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: all14% picked this

   All of the city’s trash that is not recycled goes

   Although the paragraph seems to be implying that there is some relationship between the option to incinerate and the prevalence of recycling, there's no way from this paragraph that we could possibly prove that 100% of trash is either recycled or goes into an incinerator. Isn't it possible that some trash just lies at the side of the road, or gets taken by raccoons back to their den? Nothing in this paragraph excludes such possibilities, so there's no way they've forced us to think that every single piece of trash is either recycled or incinerated.

   14%
2. B

   Too Strong: entirely2% picked this

   By recycling more trash, the city can stop wasting

   Can we imagine any city in the world that will ever "stop wasting resources entirely"? Even when we get super efficient and smart about recycling and re-purposing, it's unlikely that we won't have any speck of wasted resources. This paragraph was never saying the absurdly extreme claim that, "if we increase recycling, we can get to the point where absolutely zero of our resources are ever wasted".

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong7% picked this

   The most effective way to conserve resources is to

   Too Strong: most effective Relative vs. Absolute We know that recycling trash is more effective at conserving resources than is burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators. But knowing that recycling is better doesn't mean we know that it's best. That's a Relative vs. Absolute switcheroo, which is always shady.

   7%
4. D

   Correct64% picked this

   If the city is to avoid wasting resources, huge amounts of trash cannot be burned

   Why this is right

   This is an unusual correct answer in that almost all correct answers on Must Be True or Most Supported are derived by combining multiple claims together. But this answer is derived simply from the 2nd claim in the paragraph. We learn that burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is an incredible waste of resources. Thus, if someone wants to avoid wasting resources, then they can't burn huge amounts of trash in an incinerator. If we were told that "kittens are adorable" then it must be true that "If the city wants to avoid having adorable things within its borders, then it must exclude all kittens".

   Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   64%
5. E

   Too Strong13% picked this

   If the city does not burn trash, it will not

   Too Strong: won't waste Relative vs. Absolute We're told that recycling, rather than burning, trash is less wasteful. But that doesn't mean that if we avoid burning trash then we avoid any waste of resources. No one ever said that recycling was perfect and doesn't waste any resources. In fact, the wording hints at the idea that recycling still wastes some resources, but fewer than burning trash. This answer is also so logically similar to choice (B) that it should scare us away potentially from both. Both of them are making the crazy guarantee that a city can avoid wasting resources entirely, which is not even close to being a realistic goal for any city on planet Earth.

   13%