Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardInference and Logical Deduction

Read the following passage carefully:

Under the National Sustainable Waste Framework, plastic packaging manufacturers are mandated to disburse Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) subsidies exclusively to re-processors that handle plastic waste meeting an 85% purity threshold. While municipal corporations possess statutory authority over urban sanitation, their regulatory jurisdiction is strictly confined within municipal administrative boundaries. To fulfill federal landfill diversion targets, several municipal authorities recently introduced steep tipping surcharges on unsegregated polymer waste brought to city landfills. Because small-scale waste processing cooperatives lack the capital expenditure required to purchase optical sorting machinery, they cannot process unsegregated plastic waste to achieve the 85% purity threshold demanded by EPR-paying re-processors. Consequently, commercial haulers collecting unsegregated plastic waste increasingly divert their loads to informal processing sites situated outside municipal administrative boundaries to avoid city tipping surcharges, leaving these informal sites beyond the reach of municipal sanitation enforcement.

Based on the information provided in the passage, which of the following statements is a logically necessary inference?

  1. A
    Plastic packaging manufacturers are legally obligated to fund optical sorting machinery for small-scale cooperatives to ensure high-purity recycling.
  2. Haulers of unsegregated plastic waste can avoid city tipping surcharges while operating outside municipal sanitation enforcement by diverting waste to informal sites beyond urban boundaries.Answer
  3. C
    Small-scale waste processing cooperatives will eventually go bankrupt unless the state government provides direct subsidies for optical sorting equipment.
  4. D
    Re-processors are legally prohibited from purchasing any plastic waste streams that fall below the 85% purity threshold.

Answer

Haulers of unsegregated plastic waste can avoid city tipping surcharges while operating outside municipal sanitation enforcement by diverting waste to informal sites beyond urban boundaries.
The passage explicitly states two key facts: (1) municipal regulatory enforcement ends at municipal administrative boundaries, and (2) waste haulers move unsegregated polymer waste to informal sites outside these boundaries to avoid city tipping surcharges. Synthesizing these two premises yields the necessary logical deduction that taking waste outside municipal boundaries allows haulers to evade both tipping surcharges and municipal regulatory enforcement.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the explicit facts regarding municipal jurisdiction.
Municipal statutory enforcement is strictly confined within municipal administrative boundaries.
Establishes the geographical limit of regulatory enforcement.
2
Analyze the explicit facts regarding haulers' actions and motivations.
Haulers divert unsegregated plastic waste to informal sites outside municipal administrative boundaries to avoid city tipping surcharges.
Establishes why and where haulers move unsegregated waste.
3
Combine the premises to deduce the necessary implication.
By taking waste beyond municipal boundaries, haulers successfully avoid the landfill surcharges AND escape municipal sanitation enforcement.
Valid logical deduction strictly bound by the passage text.

Key Concept

Inference and Logical Deduction
Rate this question

Topics

Inference and Logical Deduction

More questions from this topic