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.

complete the following

Expert replies
by sq720 » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:11 am
8. Proponents of the electric car maintain that when the
technical problems associated with its battery design
are solved, such cars will be widely used and, because
they are emission-free, will result in an abatement of
the environmental degradation caused by auto
emissions. But unless we dam more rivers, the
electricity to charge these batteries will come from
nuclear or coal-fired power plants. Each of these three
power sources produces considerable environmental
damage. Thus, the electric car _______.
Which one of the following most logically completes
the argument?
(A) will have worse environmental consequences

than its proponents may believe
(B) will probably remain less popular than other
types of cars
(C) requires that purely technical problems be
solved before it can succeed
(D) will increase the total level of emissions rather
than reduce it
(E) will not produce a net reduction in
environmental degradation


Ans A what is wrong with E
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by DanaJ » Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:48 am
I agree with the OA here. You basically have two ideas presented in the passage:
- supporters of the electrical car say the use of such vehicles will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions
- to produce the necessary electricity to power these cars you need to build more dams or use other types of polluting energy

So, while the environmentalists believe the cars are great, they underestimate the impact they will have on the environment. It's true we'll have lower emissions, but that doesn't mean they won't still have an impact on nature.

E is not necessarily true. There might be a net reduction for all we know: the pollution produced by power plants might be lower than the current car emissions, so overall you have less pollution. We only know that, while there will be no car emissions, there will be some (we're not told how much) pollution from plants.
Join the discussion

by pandeyvineet24 » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:21 am
DanaJ wrote:I agree with the OA here. You basically have two ideas presented in the passage:
- supporters of the electrical car say the use of such vehicles will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions
- to produce the necessary electricity to power these cars you need to build more dams or use other types of polluting energy

So, while the environmentalists believe the cars are great, they underestimate the impact they will have on the environment. It's true we'll have lower emissions, but that doesn't mean they won't still have an impact on nature.

E is not necessarily true. There might be a net reduction for all we know: the pollution produced by power plants might be lower than the current car emissions, so overall you have less pollution. We only know that, while there will be no car emissions, there will be some (we're not told how much) pollution from plants.
Picked E here as Well.
I thought A was too extreme and not 100% true . How can we be sure that the pollution from nuclear and power plants is less than from vehicles ?

Please explain.
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:36 am
hehhhhee!! Picked E very promptly and later got dumped by cing the OA!!

E was just too enticing..culdnt resist Boss!!
Join the discussion

by DanaJ » Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:55 am
pandeyvineet24 wrote: Picked E here as Well.
I thought A was too extreme and not 100% true . How can we be sure that the pollution from nuclear and power plants is less than from vehicles ?

Please explain.
The fact is, we can't know for sure. This is why E is incorrect. You don't know if the damage caused by the power plants will be more than the damage caused by non-electric cars. The absence of a net reduction in environmental damage (i.e. option E) means that the power plants will cause more damage than current cars, but we can't really say for sure.

The deal with A is that it doesn't discuss the amount of pollution caused by power plants or by current cars. It just states that environmentalists are wrong when they assume that electric cars will eliminate car-related emissions: they will probably be reduced, but that doesn't mean that there will be ABSOLUTELY NO emissions.
Join the discussion

by heshamelaziry » Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:47 am
DanaJ wrote:
pandeyvineet24 wrote: Picked E here as Well.
I thought A was too extreme and not 100% true . How can we be sure that the pollution from nuclear and power plants is less than from vehicles ?

Please explain.
The fact is, we can't know for sure. This is why E is incorrect. You don't know if the damage caused by the power plants will be more than the damage caused by non-electric cars. The absence of a net reduction in environmental damage (i.e. option E) means that the power plants will cause more damage than current cars, but we can't really say for sure.

The deal with A is that it doesn't discuss the amount of pollution caused by power plants or by current cars. It just states that environmentalists are wrong when they assume that electric cars will eliminate car-related emissions: they will probably be reduced, but that doesn't mean that there will be ABSOLUTELY NO emissions.
You are stating what is mentioned in A. Taking A shows that emmisions will hurt the environment more than other factors, which we can not judge based on the stimulus.

I still would have chosen E on the test. It is general and does not imply emotional and extreme judgment based on insufficient information as A does.
Join the discussion

by ershovici » Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:52 pm
The logic formula for this answer is - if X then Y will happen, but unless Z happen Y could not happen.

Guys just think about the following:
In the statement we have - will result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by
auto emissions
- which is followed by "But unless we dam more rivers"

So we shoul refute the statement, and the best one is " will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation "So E is right answer.
Join the discussion

by khanshainur » Mon May 16, 2016 12:06 am
Looking at it now, E makes sense
Join the discussion