One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable bonding agent such as cornstarch. Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| One variety of partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable bonding agent such as cornstarch. |
|
| Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by describing how these 'biodegradable' containers are made, then uses that manufacturing process to conclude that they don't actually reduce plastic waste compared to regular containers.
Main Conclusion:
These partially biodegradable containers produce just as much plastic waste as regular nonbiodegradable containers when thrown away.
Logical Structure:
The premise about how the containers are constructed (only the bonding agent degrades, plastic bits remain) directly supports the conclusion that the amount of plastic waste is the same as regular containers.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find new information that makes us more confident the conclusion is correct
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a precise quantity claim - that biodegradable containers produce 'no less plastic refuse per container' than regular containers. This is an exact comparison of plastic waste amounts between two specific types of containers.
Strategy
The author concludes that biodegradable containers don't reduce plastic waste because only the cornstarch bonding agent breaks down, leaving all the plastic bits behind. To strengthen this, we need information that supports this reasoning or eliminates potential counterarguments. We should look for facts that confirm the plastic bits truly don't break down, that the amount of plastic is indeed the same, or that rule out other ways these containers might produce less plastic waste.
Both partially biodegradable and nonbiodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors.
This tells us both types of containers can be crushed flat by compactors. This doesn't help strengthen the argument about the amount of plastic waste produced. Whether containers can be crushed doesn't change the fact that the same amount of plastic material exists after disposal - it's just in a different shape. This is irrelevant to the argument's conclusion about plastic refuse amounts.
The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents.
This directly strengthens the argument by revealing that biodegradable containers actually contain MORE plastic than regular containers to compensate for the weakness caused by using bonding agents instead of solid plastic construction. If these containers start with more plastic material, then when the bonding agent degrades and leaves behind all the plastic bits, we definitely have 'no less plastic refuse' - we might even have more. This supports the conclusion perfectly.
Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in the partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.
This discusses consumer preferences for buying biodegradable containers even at higher prices. While this might explain why these containers are popular, it doesn't strengthen the argument about how much plastic waste they produce when discarded. Consumer buying behavior is irrelevant to the waste production claim.
The manufacturing process for the partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for nonbiodegradable plastic beverage containers.
This talks about the manufacturing process creating less plastic waste, but our argument is specifically about what happens when containers are discarded by consumers, not about manufacturing waste. Even if manufacturing creates less waste, the conclusion about disposal waste amounts remains unaffected.
Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container.
This explains that recycling problems prevent reuse of plastic from both container types. While this means both types end up as waste rather than being recycled, it doesn't strengthen the specific claim that biodegradable containers produce no less plastic refuse than regular containers. It treats both types equally rather than supporting the comparison.