The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council.
“Two years ago, consultants predicted that West Egg’s landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, the town’s residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material — which includes paper, plastic, and metal — should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town’s strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The town council chairman is correct in stating that West Egg residents have significantly increased their recycling efforts, but he does not present enough information to determine whether or not this increase in recycling is due to a tax increase or an increase in public awareness. The chairman’s statement is vague and does not clearly state whether the town’s residents have simply increased their recycling efforts, or if they are recycling more as a result of the new charge.
The chairman asserts that the increase in recycling resulted from a tax increase. However, the vague statement leaves several questions about this assertion. First, it is quite possible that the increase in recycling is a result of the tax increase. Many people may have chosen to recycle more as a result of an increase in their disposable income, or they may have simply recycled more out of habit. The tax may have simply enabled the town to collect more money from its recycling efforts, which would be allocated toward the construction of additional recycling containers or the hiring of additional recycling workers. Second, the tax increase may have been minimal, which would not have an impact on recycling. The chairman mentions that the new charge doubles the amount of garbage that residents must pay in order to recycle. However, it is not feasible to double the amount of garbage collected each year, since recycling containers can only hold so much material. It may even be possible to collect more garbage than town residents use, which would then be stored until it is sold. The tax increase could have been small, so that the increase in recycling could be attributed to the changes in recycling habits rather than a higher tax rate.
The chairman also cites the results of a survey that indicates that a majority of the town’s residents would recycle more in the future. However, the chairman does not provide any details about this survey, such as the number of residents who completed the survey, the response rate, or the method by which the survey was administered. A larger sample of the population would have provided a more accurate representation of the town’s residents.
The chairman finishes his memo with an optimistic statement that the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. One reason for this optimistic outlook is the town’s strong commitment to recycling. However, the chairman does not provide any validation for this statement. A municipality can decide to increase its recycling efforts without an increase in taxes, or it can raise taxes to fund additional recycling efforts. The chairman’s statement is vague enough that it can easily be interpreted to mean that the town’s leadership has resolved to increase its recycling efforts regardless of the cost. It may be the case that the town’s leadership has made this decision, but it is more likely that the leadership is simply assuming a course of action that the town’s residents may choose to take.
The chairman’s memo does not support his statement that the increase in recycling was the result of a tax increase. The town’s increased recycling efforts could have been caused by increased public awareness rather than an increase in the recycling fee.