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.

Brazilian ash...assumption

Expert replies
by rahulg83 » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:36 am
The popular notion that a tree's age can be determined by counting the number of internal rings in its trunk is generally true. However, to help regulate the internal temperature of the tree, the outermost layers of wood of the Brazilian ash often peel away when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit, leaving the tree with fewer rings than it would otherwise have. So only if the temperature in the Brazilian ash's environment never exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit will its rings be a reliable measure of the tree's age.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
A) The growth of new rings in a tree is not a function of levels of precipitation.
B) Only the Brazilian ash loses rings because of excessive heat.
C) Only one day of temperatures above 95 degrees Fahrenheit is needed to cause the Brazilian ash to lose a ring.
D) The internal rings of all trees are of uniform thickness.
E) The number of rings that will be lost when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit is not predictable.

OA E
Why not C, OE says it is irrelevant. I'd like to know why?
Pls explain your answers
source : MGMAT
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by SanjeevK » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:14 am
IMO E
A: Irrelevant
B: Irrelevant
C: The stimulus tells us that when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit, the outermost layers peel away. It doesn't tell us about duration. This can happen when the temperature exceeds 95 degrees for less than a day or more than a day.
D: Irrelevant

Only E gives us the right assumption that if we can't predict the number of rings lost when temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit, we can't determine the tree's age.

Try negating this assumption. Let us say that we can predict the number of rings lost due to temperature exceeding 95 degrees Fahrenheit. In that case we know the total number of rings for the tree (rings present in the tree and the number of rings that was lost due to temp exceeding 95). Hence we can predict the age.
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:34 pm
IMO - E, @SanjeevK has given a perfect explanation.
Join the discussion

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 7:56 pm
Looking at it now, E makes sense
Join the discussion