Top Law Schools

Mint-Berry_Crunch wrote:

cheeseee wrote:Another PT 76 Question. I promise this one is the last one. >.<

LR4 - Question 23: "The city's previous recycling program...

[+] Spoiler

So I see that "easier to adhere to" will lead to more recycles. But isn't that an extra assumption we have to make? I'm a little confused because on some answers, we can eliminate just because it makes an extra assumption. I get that other answers are wrong, but I feel like this one is a stretch.

[+] Spoiler

so overall test awareness, Q23 on a test will probably have a CR thats not one that you actually like.

ARG: existing plan costs too much, we should move to weekly. its more cost effective since well pick up more recyclables and increase revenue. editor says: no, sine same volume there wont be an increase in revenue.

the editors argument is relying on the volume to remain constant even if we change, so we have to say that the editor is wrong. notice that the conclusion for the editor is that the notion that volume will change is wrong, the editor is not saying that adopting the new plan is a bad idea. that narrows the scope of what we want to look for to pretty much volume only.

so its wishy washy, but if its easier to recycle then its easier for people recycle, which means they might put more out. maybe now with the longer gaps, people throw bottles away in the normal trash because they get stinky, but under a weekly program this doesn't happen. remember were assuming that D is true. Something is more effective if its easier for people who we assume already comply (meaning they do recycle when their recycling is picked up) to comply more.

it doesnt have to be 100% right, you just have to hate it less.

hope that helps!

this Q is a good example of why i think people struggle with the newer LR

[+] Spoiler

on older LR i would have picked C because it said "volume" and moved on, but C is actually wrong because it does not relate the less time to effectiveness.