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.

CO2~Methane - counter the objection CR

Expert replies
by aj5105 » Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:22 pm
Proposal: Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere block the escape of heat into space. So emission of these “greenhouse” gases contributes to global warming. In order to reduce global warming, emission of greenhouse gases needs to be reduced. Therefore, the methane now emitted from open landfills should instead be burned to produce electricity.

Objection: The burning of methane generates carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere.

Which of the following, if true, most adequately counters the objection made to the proposal?

A. Every time a human being or other mammal exhales, there is some carbon dioxide released into the air.
B. The conversion of methane to electricity would occur at a considerable distance from the landfills.
C. The methane that is used to generate electricity would generally be used as a substitute for a fuel that does not produce any greenhouse gases when burned.
D. Methane in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth than is carbon dioxide.
E. The amount of methane emitted from the landfills could be reduced if the materials whose decomposition produces methane were not discarded, but recycled.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Re: CO2~Methane - counter the objection CR

by logitech » Sat Jan 03, 2009 8:05 pm
Objection says that M will be C so why burning ? But what if C is less dangerous compared to M ?

D. Methane in the atmosphere is more effective in blocking the escape of heat from the Earth than is carbon dioxide.

So this counters the objection because we are getting rid of Methane and turning it into a less effective gas in blocking the heat.
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"
Join the discussion

by vivek.kapoor83 » Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:01 am
agree with logitech completely
Join the discussion

by Bidisha800 » Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:32 am
(D)
Drill baby drill !

GMATPowerPrep Test1= 740
GMATPowerPrep Test2= 760
Kaplan Diagnostic Test= 700
Kaplan Test1=600
Kalplan Test2=670
Kalplan Test3=570
Join the discussion

by logitech » Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:38 pm
Bidisha800 wrote:(D)
Attachments
LitterBug.jpg
LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"
Join the discussion

by ahnan » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:50 am
could someone explain the methodology to do this one?
Join the discussion

by arora007 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:37 pm
C vs D... why not C?
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Join the discussion

by manpsingh87 » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:19 pm
arora007 wrote:C vs D... why not C?
Option C talks about stopping further production of green house gases, but it didn't mention anything about the harmful effect of carbon dioxide which is still produced while producing electricity from methane. As here we have to counter the objection therefore we must look at the option which strengthens to the conformity that methane blocks more heat.
O Excellence... my search for you is on... you can be far.. but not beyond my reach!
Join the discussion

by czarczar » Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:23 pm
I'm still not getting what is wrong with C.
Join the discussion

by fitzgerald23 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:21 pm
I can see how its easy to get a little lost in this one, especially since they are asking you to counter the objection.

Point: CO2 and CH4 contribute to global warming. That can be reduced by burning CH4 to make electricity.

Counterpoint: CH4 generates CO2

What you are really being asked here is to resolve the paradox. How can burning the CH4 still help the problem even though it produces another global warming gas?

A. Incorrect. All this tells us is that CO2 is naturally in the air, something we already know from the passage.

B. Incorrect. The landfill area is not the problem

C. Incorrect. What they are saying is that burning the CH4 will be used as a substitute for a non global warming contributor. So how would that help counter the objective? It would not. CH4 would still emit CO2, a global warming gas, and it would not be replacing something worse to the atmosphere. For this to be correct they would have to tell you that they are replacing a fuel that has a gas much more hazardous to the atmosphere than CO2.

D. Correct. Here they are telling us that CH4 is worse than CO2. So by burning the methane they are easing the effect on global warming, even if they do not eliminate it complteley.

E. Incorrect. Adds nothing to the issue at hand as it provides a compltely different scenario.
Join the discussion