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.

In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of

Expert replies
by BTGmoderatorDC » Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:02 pm
In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it. Burning household garbage releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins. New conservation regulations will require a major reduction in packaging-specifically, paper and cardboard packaging-for products sold in the area. Since such packaging materials contain dioxins, one result of the implementation of the new regulations will surely be a reduction in dioxin pollution in the area.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard can easily burn hot enough for some portion of the dioxins that it contains to be destroyed.
B. Packaging materials typically make up only a small proportion of the weight of household garbage, but a relatively large proportion of its volume.
C. Per-capita sales of products sold in paper and cardboard packaging are lower in rural areas than in urban areas.
D. The new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper products in order to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.
E. It is not known whether the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage have been the cause of any serious health problems.


OA A

Source: Official Guide
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by deloitte247 » Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:22 am
Premise: In a certain rural area, people normally dispose of household garbage by burning it, and this burning releases toxic chemicals known as dioxins.

Conclusion: New regulations will require a major reduction in packaging-specifically, paper, and cardboard packaging- for products sold in the area because such packaging materials contain dioxins.

Option A - Correct
Burning of garbage containing large quantities of paper and cardboard will not destroy the dioxins contained in the garbage but will lead to the releasing of more quantities of toxic dioxin to the environment.

Option B - Incorrect
Our aim is to discredit the reason for the conservation regulation leading to the major reduction of packaging-specifically, paper, and cardboard packaging- for products sold in the area. So, this option has nothing to do about this.

Option C - Incorrect
This is also irrelevant to the argument.

Option D - Incorrect
Well, the new conservation regulations were motivated by a need to cut down on the consumption of paper and cardboard packed-products to reduce dioxin pollution in the area, and not to bring the harvesting of timber into a healthier balance with its regrowth.

Option E - Incorrect
Of course, there is no report of any serious health problems caused by the dioxins released by the burning of household garbage, but this is not enough reason to oppose the argument.
Join the discussion