B v D

@Meredith, The issue with (D) is that the argument does not actually rely on this premise to reach the conclusion as you pointed out - this fact is not particularly helpful, whereas the premise an argument relies on must have an impact on the validity of the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the following premises: Because many residents would resent a mandate to sort their garbage despite some compliance Because the costs are the same for either system Because voluntary system does not endanger as much resentment Therefore, voluntary system is preferred. (B) is correct because this fact lends some - though weak - support to an alternative to a practice that the editorial defends as preferable. The editorial defends voluntary system for garbage sorting, hence the alternative to it is a mandatory system. The fact that universal compliance would save the town money on removing trash supports the fact that a mandatory system should be implemented. Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any other questions.

Can you explain why not A?

So is it correct to say that because universal compliance would save the town money on removing trash supports the fact that a mandatory system should be implemented, that statement in the question actually concedes to a possible objection to the main conclusion? Thank you

Hi, it is not A because the conclusion of the argument is the final sentence, that we should not make the switch. I think the statement isn't exactly a concession, since the fact that it would save money isn't actually giving any ground. The author recognizes this but thinks that mandating would fail to achieve universal compliance, so just admitting that the goal is good doesn't actually serve as a conversation about a possible means of achieving that goal.