Logical Reasoning

PT8 · S4 · Q24 Most disposable plastic containers are

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

Most disposable plastic containers are now labeled with a code number (from 1 to 9) indicating the type or quality of the plastic.

Conclusion (therefore)

Consumers can make a significant long-term reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled by refusing to purchase products packaged in plastic containers labeled with the highest code numbers.

Evidence

Plastics with the lowest code numbers are easiest for recycling plants to recycle and are the most likely to be recycled. Plastics with the highest numbers are only rarely recycled.

Evaluate

This argument suggests a Plan/Goal relationship.

GOAL: significantly reduce unrecycled waste PLAN: refuse to buy high-numbered plastic products.

We should examine whether the plan would actually lead to the goal.

If consumers refuse to purchase high-numbered plastics, what impact does it have on recycling rates? Aren't we environmentalists supposed to buy products made of highly recycled material? Maybe the high codes are just showing that we're maximizing the life cycle of some product that keeps getting recycled and slapped with a higher code.

Goal

We need an answer that gives us a story where we stop buying products with the high code numbers on them, but this doesn't make a big reduction in the amount of waste that goes unrecycled.

24.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion above?

The cost of collecting, sorting,
No Impact
The relative cost of recycling versus new manufacturing doesn't tell us whether avoiding high-numbered plastics can significantly reduce unrecycled waste.
2% picked this
Many consumers are unaware of
No Impact
While consumer awareness of the codes could impact behavior, this doesn't give us a way to say that "if we refused to buy products with high codes, it wouldn't significantly reduce our unrecycled waste." We have to play along with the Plan and argue that it would fail to achieve the Goal. We can't argue "it's impossible to do the plan because many consumers are currently unaware of the codes".
17% picked this
Correct
A plastic container almost always
Why this is right
This is saying that every time you recycle something, the resulting new product has a higher numbered code. If consumers aren't willing to buy a produce with a code 6 on it, then companies will stop recycling products with a code 5. Thus all that plastic with code 5 on it would become waste. We have to be willing to buy products made from highly recycled material in order to incentivize recycling.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
66% picked this
Products packaged in plastics with
No Impact
The relative expense of lower-numbered plastics doesn't directly impact the argument that avoiding higher-numbered plastics reduces waste. We have to play along with the Plan (we DO refuse to buy the higher code products) and argue it will fail to achieve the goal of significantly reducing waste.
7% picked this
Communities that collect all discarded
No Impact
If anything, this helps the author to say, "See? The higher-numbered codes eventually end up in a landfills because no one will recycle them. We should refuse to buy those." This doesn't give us a way to say that refusing to buy these high-coded products would fail to reduce waste.
7% 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