BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

As the US increased the production of natural gas

Expert replies
by gmatdriller » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:58 am
As the US increased the production of natural gas released from underground shale formations, creating more output of polyethylene, it was expected that makers of plastic products such as plastic trash bags, toys, containers etc., which use polyethylene as a raw material, would benefit from the same as a result of the decrease in the price of natural gas. However, makers of plastic products have instead reported no cost benefit as a result of the increase in the supply of natural gas.

Which of the following, if true, most explains the zero cost benefit as reported by the makers of plastic products mentioned in the above argument?

A: To discourage people from using plastic products, many countries have started levying heavy taxes on the plastic industry as a measure to increase the cost of production and the resultant price of plastic products.

B: The price of ethane, a component of natural gas and raw material for polyethylene has decreased due to the increased supply of natural gas.

C: The makers of polyethylene have increased their profit margins and hence are not passing on lower cost benefits to their customers.

D: It is predicted that plastic manufacturers will eventually realize cost benefits, once the production of natural gas is further ramped up.

E: Since the production of natural gas released from shale formation has increased, the demand for plastic products has decreased significantly.

Explanations please... Thanks
Source: e-gmat CR Ability test
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ddg » Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:23 am
As the US increased the production of natural gas released from underground shale formations, creating more output of polyethylene, it was expected that makers of plastic products such as plastic trash bags, toys, containers etc., which use polyethylene as a raw material, would benefit from the same as a result of the decrease in the price of natural gas. However, makers of plastic products have instead reported no cost benefit as a result of the increase in the supply of natural gas.

Flowchart:
US increased production of natural gas ---> creating more output of PE ---> It was expected to decrease the cost price of PE to plastic product makers (PPM) who use PE as raw material ---> however, the PPM said there was no cost benefit (conclusion)


A: To discourage people from using plastic products, many countries have started levying heavy taxes on the plastic industry as a measure to increase the cost of production and the resultant price of plastic products.
We are talking about US, so no discussion of polices of other countries is required


B: The price of ethane, a component of natural gas and raw material for polyethylene has decreased due to the increased supply of natural gas.
We are talking about PE, not a component of natural gas. And even if it decreased, then also, the cost price of PE must decrease and benefit the PPM

C: The makers of polyethylene have increased their profit margins and hence are not passing on lower cost benefits to their customers.
If the PE makers increased their profit margin, then they are selling PE at a higher price than before despite getting natural gas at a lower price (than they did before) ---> causing no benefit of PE's price to PPM. Rather they have to purchase PE at maybe a significant or marginal higher price, but higher price definitely.

D: It is predicted that plastic manufacturers will eventually realize cost benefits, once the production of natural gas is further ramped up.
Predictions aren't going to resolve the paradox here.

E: Since the production of natural gas released from shale formation has increased, the demand for plastic products has decreased significantly.
Demand for Plastic products may have decreased, but how are the PPM affected in their cost price of PE?? the relationship in question isn't PPM vs. Public Demand but PE makers Vs PPM.

OA: C
Join the discussion

by gmatdriller » Wed Aug 19, 2015 2:12 am
I agree with you, ddg....
Where MPE = Makers of PolyEthylene; MPP = Makers of Plastic Products
MPE sells to MPP sells to Customers(public)

If MPE(makers of polyethylene) decided not to reduce the price of PE's
,despite the cheap source, ofcourse MPP will not get any cost benefit resulting
from the reductions.So, we have zero-cost benefit to makers of plastic Products, MPP.

C does it.
Join the discussion

by ddg » Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:27 am
Join the discussion