Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S4 · Q23 Editor: The city's previous recycling

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

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

Conclusion

It's absurd to think that the new weekly pickup program will be more cost effective because it will lead to a greater volume of recyclables collected each year. (i.e. the new weekly pickup program will not be more cost effective -- either because it won't lead to a greater volume of recyclables collected or because it won't be cost effective for some other reason)

Evidence

People will put out the same volume of recyclables overall; it will just be spread out over a greater number of pickups.

Evaluate

Given that .... people will put out the same volume overall (it will just be a lower amount each week rather than a bigger amount every two weeks)

How could we still argue that ... the weekly pickup program would be more cost effective?

We'd probably need to hear about other factors involved in doing recyclable pickups that would be more efficient / less costly if we were doing weekly pickups of less stuff, compared to bi-weekly pickups of more stuff.

Goal

Look for something that helps us argue that making twice the trips to pick up half as much recyclables each time would somehow save money (don't have to hire as many workers? more efficient when it comes to unloading and sorting the recyclables? the trucks get way better mileage when they're only 1/2 loaded?)

23.

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

  1. The cost of collecting and

    Strengthens, if anything

    In order to weaken this argument, which is saying "it's absurd to think this will be more cost effective: it will be same volume, just greater pickups", we need to be able to point to some difference that could save us money or make us revenue. This answer is stressing more sameness, so it would strengthen, if anything.

    2% picked this

  2. Even if the volume of

    Strengthens, if anything

    This helps the author to argue that this new program won't be cost effective, even if we did grant them the assumption they were making about the volume of collected recyclables increasing.

    2% picked this

  3. Because the volume of recyclables

    Unclear Impact

    This is somewhat tempting because it discusses a change, a difference, and that difference "takes less time to do the pickup" could be connected via common sense to being less costly. The problem is there are twice as many pickups in the new program (every week vs. every two weeks). So, yes, it takes less time to do pickups under the program, but since there are twice as many pickups, it would have to take less than 1/2 as much time as when it was bi-weekly, in order for us to get any time savings. Suppose that when we're picking up bi-weekly, it takes us 4 hours to do pickups in the Woodland Heights neighborhood. If switching to weekly pickups means that now it only takes us 3 hours to do pickups in that neighborhood, are we saving time? No, because we have to do 2 weekly pickups for every 1 bi-weekly pickup we used to do. So we'd be spending 6 hours every two weeks on Woodland Heights, whereas we used to spend 4 hours every two weeks. So the impact of this answer is unclear. If we thought we were cutting time by more than 1/2, then our overall time expended would be less and we could argue that we're being more cost effective that way. But since this answer doesn't say how much time we're saving, we might actually be spending more time doing pickups under the new program.

    21% picked this

  4. Correct

    A weekly schedule for recyclables

    Why this is right

    There is a little bit of heft to this answer because it says substantially easier. It's suggesting that people would more reliably put out recyclables every week, if we switched to a weekly pickup. Thus, the city might really end up collecting more recyclables, and thus the city might gain more revenue from recyclables, thus making the program more cost effective. Do I have problems with this correct answer? Oh, GOODNESS do I have problems with it. First of all, it's surprisingly just contradicting the evidence. The author's premise was that people will put out the same volume of recyclables overall, just spread out over a greater number of pickups. This answer is calling that idea into questions, by saying that people have just a hard time remembering "Is this the week for recyclables or not?" that they (presumably) throw it in the (presumably) weekly garbage. It's not illegal or unprecedented for LSAT to go against a premise. There's no rule saying they can't. It's happened about 5 times. It's just so rare that we don't look for it. But we want to understand that it can happen so that we can at least interpret a stinkball answer like this one. My bigger problem, being a homeowner and a recycler, is the fact that we're supposed to think that because a pickup schedule is substantially easier for people to follow that this even really suggests that people will end up putting out more recyclables overall. When we miss a recyclable pickup at my house (or if we have too much for one pickup, like after Christmas), we don't throw that stuff away. We just keep stuffing our recycling bin for the next few pickups until we've gotten rid of all of it. This answer is definitely leaning on the idea that if people find it hard to remember when the recyclables are getting picked up, they will otherwise throw that stuff in the garbage. The important thing, I guess, is that as long as some people throw stuff in the garbage currently, because they can't remember the recyclable pickup schedule, then if they start recycling because the pickups become weekly and easy to remember, then the city does get a boost in volume of recyclables collected.

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

    68% picked this

  5. Because of the increase in

    Strengthens

    This is bringing up a change that occurs with the weekly pickups, but it goes against being cost effective (the contractor will charge the city way more money for all these pickups), so it would just strengthen the author's conclusion.

    6% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free