Standard aluminum soft-drink cans

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope7% picked this

   The aluminum in the cans of M cannot be

   The argument does not address what might happen with the aluminum in the cans of M. This does nothing to convince us that "twice as much aluminum in M = twice as many cans in M".

   7%
2. B

   Out of Scope4% picked this

   Recycled aluminum is of poorer quality than

   The quality of aluminum is not relevant to this argument. We only care about the relationship between amount of aluminum and number of cans.

   4%
3. C

   Correct71% picked this

   All of the aluminum in an aluminum can is recovered when the

   Why this is right

   This ensures that fifty percent of the aluminum in M is equivalent to one hundred percent of the aluminum in L. If it weren't true that all the aluminum in a can is recovered, then we would have our objection. We could argue that, "Yes, M is 10 kg of aluminum spread out over 100 cans. And yes, L supplied 5 kg of that aluminum. But that doesn't mean that L was 50 cans. After all, not all the aluminum is recovered in the recycling process. If we recycled 50 cans from L, we wouldn't recover all 5 kg of aluminum in there. Some of it is lost in the recycling process. We might only get 4 kg of aluminum from those 50 cans." Thus, if some of the aluminum is lost in the process, then you might need to recycle 60 cans worth of L in order to get 50 cans worth of recycled aluminum. It might be that L was 60 cans, comprised of 6 kg of aluminum, but when we recycled it, we only recovered 5 kg of aluminum. We used that 5 kg to help make 100 cans (10 kg) of M. But it isn't true to say M has twice as many cans as L, if M is 100 cans and L was 60 cans. This answer rules out that sort of objection and makes the math all work. If everything from L gets transferred over in the recycling process, then "half as much aluminum as M = half as many cans as M".

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

   71%
4. D

   Out of Scope14% picked this

   None of the soft-drink cans in group L had been made

   Whether the aluminum in the cans of L had been used in previously is not relevant to the argument. We are told that L is pretty much 100% aluminum (the non-aluminum parts are negligible). So whether the aluminum in L is a "first pressing" or the result of recycling previous aluminum containers doesn't change the fact that the cans in group L were basically 100% aluminum.

   14%
5. E

   Out of Scope4% picked this

   Aluminum soft-drink cans are more easily recycled than are soft-drink cans made

   Soft-drink cans made from other materials are not relevant to this argument. We only care about the relationship between amount of aluminum recycled and number of cans used to make that recycled aluminum.

   4%