A local government proposed a mandatory recycling program, arguing it would significantly reduce landfill waste and promote environmental sustainability. Opponents argued that the program would impose an undue burden on residents and businesses without achieving its stated goals. Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support the opponents' argument that the program would not achieve its stated goals?
- ANeighboring towns with similar mandatory recycling programs have seen a modest decrease in overall waste.
- BA large portion of the waste currently sent to landfills consists of construction debris, which is not covered by the proposed recycling program.
- CSurveys show that most residents are willing to separate recyclables if provided with clear guidelines.
- DThe cost of implementing the mandatory recycling program is projected to be higher than initial estimates.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. A large portion of the waste currently sent to landfills consists of construction debris, which is not covered by the proposed recycling program.
The program aims to significantly reduce landfill waste. To support the opponents' argument that it *would not achieve its stated goals*, one must show that the program targets a minor part of the problem. If construction debris, which is not covered, constitutes a large portion of landfill waste, then even a successful recycling program for other waste types would not lead to a *significant* overall reduction, thus supporting the opponents' claim.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. A 'modest' decrease in neighboring towns suggests the program might not achieve *significant* reduction, which aligns with the opponents' argument and strengthens it, but option A directly identifies a large, unaddressed source of waste, making it a stronger challenge to the 'significant reduction' goal.
- C. This suggests that residents would comply, which would support the program's potential success, not weaken it.
- D. This addresses the financial burden (a secondary argument of the opponents), but not the core argument about whether the program would achieve its waste reduction goals.
Refuting Foundational Premises
Refuting a foundational premise involves demonstrating that a core assumption or a key piece of information upon which an argument is built is incorrect or insufficient to support the conclusion.
- Targets the core 'if-then' logic of an argument.
- Shows that the stated means will not achieve the stated end.
- Often identifies a critical omission or mischaracterization of the problem.
Memory trick: If the foundation is cracked, the building won't stand.