A local government proposed a mandatory recycling program, arguing it would significantly reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills. An environmental advocacy group countered that the program would have a negligible impact because most of the city's waste is non-recyclable construction debris. Which of the following, if true, would most effectively refute the advocacy group's counter-argument?
- AThe city's landfill capacity is projected to reach its limit within five years, regardless of the recycling program.
- BThe cost of processing recycled materials is higher than the cost of landfill disposal.
- CNeighboring cities have implemented mandatory recycling programs with varying degrees of success.
- DA recent audit revealed that household and commercial waste, much of which is recyclable, constitutes 70% of the city's total waste stream.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. A recent audit revealed that household and commercial waste, much of which is recyclable, constitutes 70% of the city's total waste stream.
The advocacy group's counter-argument hinges on the premise that 'most of the city's waste is non-recyclable construction debris', implying the recycling program would have a 'negligible impact'. Option B directly refutes this premise by stating that household and commercial waste, which is largely recyclable, constitutes 70% of the total waste. If 70% is recyclable, then the program would likely have a significant, not negligible, impact.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This supports the need for *some* solution but doesn't refute the claim about the recycling program's *impact* on overall waste.
- B. Cost is irrelevant to the program's effectiveness in reducing waste at landfills.
- C. Varying success in other cities doesn't directly refute the specific claim about the composition of *this city's* waste.
Refuting Foundational Premises
To effectively refute a counter-argument, directly challenge or provide evidence against the core factual premise upon which that counter-argument is built.
- Identify the central claim of the counter-argument.
- Pinpoint the underlying fact or assumption it relies upon.
- Provide strong evidence that contradicts this foundational premise.
Memory trick: Knock down the legs, and the table falls.