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
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget 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.

K-Belt Object

Expert replies
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

by killer1387 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:40 pm
IMO E

OA??
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:21 pm
IMO E, evident by para 3.

You may have been tricked by C and D which are close
C is defied by line 1 of last para and D is incorrect since there was one incident of decreasing whereas D mentions a trend
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion

by patanjali.purpose » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:41 pm
vikram4689 wrote:IMO E, evident by para 3.

You may have been tricked by C and D which are close
C is defied by line 1 of last para and D is incorrect since there was one incident of decreasing whereas D mentions a trend
OA-E;

Can you explain how you eliminated C?
Join the discussion

by killer1387 » Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:45 pm
@PATANJALI

Passage suggests "less well known..." ALSO it says "70000 other small bodies, primarily found in K-belt.."
never does passage concretely defines 70000 as K Belt Objects or does states any relation thereby.

Basically nothing in the passage supports option C.

HTH
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:09 am
patanjali.purpose wrote:
vikram4689 wrote:IMO E, evident by para 3.

You may have been tricked by C and D which are close
C is defied by line 1 of last para and D is incorrect since there was one incident of decreasing whereas D mentions a trend
OA-E;

Can you explain how you eliminated C?
In last 2 lines of para 1, Passage at least 70000 bodies are found in K-Belt and then it categorizes KBO's. In 1st line of last para, passage says K-belt is NOW much smaller than it was. So "at least 70000 figure" may have been reduced to (say) "at least 50000". We do not have any info to identify the at least ____ , we only know that number is reduced.



Killer1387,
never does passage concretely defines 70000 as K Belt Objects or does states any relation thereby.
We can take small bodies found in K-belt as KBO's
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion

by [email protected] » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:01 am
According to the passage, which of the following can be inferred about Kuiper Belt Objects?
a) they orbit between Neptune and Pluto ( NO, the para also says that Pluto and these KBO are little Plutos)
b) they are all affected by the presence of Neptune ( NO, in 3rd para it says so - occasional proximity can send them out of solar system entirely. It means not all but only some )
c) at least 70,000 of them are known to exist ( Yes, 1st para says so)
d) the number of them is decreasing ( NO, nowhere this is mentioned)
e) some of them travel beyond the solar system ( Yes, this is mentioned)

My confusion is between C and E....can any please tell me if i am on the right track here?
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:21 am
See my reply above, let me know if it helps
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion

by patanjali.purpose » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:09 pm
vikram4689 wrote:
patanjali.purpose wrote:
vikram4689 wrote:IMO E, evident by para 3.

You may have been tricked by C and D which are close
C is defied by line 1 of last para and D is incorrect since there was one incident of decreasing whereas D mentions a trend
OA-E;

Can you explain how you eliminated C?
In last 2 lines of para 1, Passage at least 70000 bodies are found in K-Belt and then it categorizes KBO's. In 1st line of last para, passage says K-belt is NOW much smaller than it was. So "at least 70000 figure" may have been reduced to (say) "at least 50000". We do not have any info to identify the at least ____ , we only know that number is reduced.
1st para: LESS well known is the existence of at least 70,000 other small objects orbiting the sun beyond Neptune. These objects are primarily found within Kuiper Belt (NOTE: the use of PRESENT TENSE - this shows minimum of 70,000 objects exist today)

Last para: The Kuiper Belt is actually much smaller than it once was - THE REDUCTION YOU MENTIONED IS with respect to sometime in PAST. The numbers have reduced to atleast 70,000 from an unknown numbers (definitely higher) in the past.

IMO what goes against C is that 'pssg never says whether 70,000 other small objects are actually KBOs"
Join the discussion

by vikram4689 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:42 am
It seems that words "less well known is the existence..." are tying to imply to there is less confidence over statement following it.

Those objects are "at least 70000" are certainly K-belt objects. See last line of 1st para "these objects primarily are found in a ring known as K-belt"
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)
Join the discussion

by ronnie1985 » Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:47 am
In my opinion (E)as 3rd para specifically says that the objects in question are thrown out of solar system...
Follow your passion, Success as perceived by others shall follow you
Join the discussion