Question 147·Hard·Inferences
In a 2022 study of municipal recycling programs, researchers installed electronic displays in several neighborhoods that showed residents, in real time, how many pounds of waste their street had kept out of landfills that week. In comparable neighborhoods, residents received only a monthly leaflet reminding them of pickup schedules. After three months, recycling rates in the real-time-feedback neighborhoods increased by 24 percent, while rates in the leaflet neighborhoods did not change. The researchers conducted no additional outreach during the study period.
These findings most strongly suggest that ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
For "most strongly suggests" completion questions, restate the study’s key comparison (what differed between groups) and the outcome (which group improved). Then choose the option that draws a cautious inference that matches that comparison—without adding new causes, details, or extreme language.
Hints
Locate the key comparison
Focus on how the two sets of neighborhoods are different. What does one group get that the other group does not?
Connect the difference to the results
Look at the change in recycling rates in each group. Which group improved, and what special feature did that group have?
Beware of extra or extreme claims
Eliminate choices that add causes the study didn’t test (like pre-existing motivation) or add details not stated (like comparing one street to other streets).
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what the researchers changed (the key difference)
First, notice there are two different groups of neighborhoods:
- Group 1: Electronic displays showing residents, in real time, how many pounds of waste their street kept out of landfills that week.
- Group 2: Only a monthly leaflet reminding them of pickup schedules.
The question asks what the findings "most strongly suggest," so you need to focus on what changed between these groups and what effect that change had.
Understand the results for each group
Next, look at what happened in each group after three months:
- In the real-time-feedback neighborhoods, recycling rates increased by 24 percent.
- In the leaflet neighborhoods, recycling rates did not change.
Also, the passage says the researchers conducted no additional outreach during the study period, so the conclusion should focus on the key difference described: real-time feedback displays versus monthly reminder leaflets.
Decide what kind of conclusion is reasonable
A reasonable conclusion should:
- Be based only on what the study actually tested (real-time displays vs. monthly leaflets).
- Avoid introducing new causes that were not tested (for example, assuming one group was inherently more motivated).
- Avoid adding extra details not stated (for example, claims about comparisons between streets or about environmental messaging).
The safest inference is that immediate, visible progress information is linked to the increase.
Match the reasonable conclusion to the answer choices
Only one option directly matches the study’s comparison without adding unsupported specifics:
- The real-time displays provide immediate, visible feedback about progress.
- Monthly leaflets provide only periodic reminders.
So the findings most strongly suggest that providing immediate, visible information about recycling progress can encourage residents to recycle more effectively than periodic reminders alone.