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.

Logging industry

Expert replies
by madhur_ahuja » Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:13 pm
Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since when large old trees die in the forest they decompose, releasing their stored carbon dioxide. Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the official’s argument?

(A) Many old-growth forests are the home of thousands of animal species that would be endangered if the forests were to be destroyed.

(B) Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly.

(C) A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide present in forests is eventually released when wood and other organic debris found on the forest floor decompose.

(E) It can take many years for the trees of a newly planted forest to reach the size of those found in existing old-growth forests.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by viju9162 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:32 am
I'm stuck between B and D ... Is the answer "D"
"Native of" is used for a individual while "Native to" is used for a large group
Join the discussion

by italian7745 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:52 am
IMO B
Join the discussion

by matt.lopz » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:10 am
Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since when large old trees die in the forest they decompose, releasing their stored carbon dioxide. Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the official’s argument?

(A) Many old-growth forests are the home of thousands of animal species that would be endangered if the forests were to be destroyed.

(B) Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly.

(C) A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide present in forests is eventually released when wood and other organic debris found on the forest floor decompose.

(E) It can take many years for the trees of a newly planted forest to reach the size of those found in existing old-growth forests.
ANSWER:

Premise 1: When large old trees die in the forest they decompose, releasing their stored carbon dioxide.

Additional Premise 2
: Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.

Conclusion: Harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Prove that: The amount of Carbon dioxide released in atmosphere does NOT reduce


(A) Many old-growth forests are the home of thousands of animal species that would be endangered if the forests were to be destroyed. OUT OF SCOPE.

(B) Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly. CORRECT ANSWER!

(C) A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species. IRRELEVANT DETAIL.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide present in forests is eventually released when wood and other organic debris found on the forest floor decompose. IRRELEVANT DETAIL.

(E) It can take many years for the trees of a newly planted forest to reach the size of those found in existing old-growth forests. IRRELEVANT DETAIL.
Join the discussion

by shoh0ku » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:23 am
B cannot be correct because it talks about products, which are made out of old trees, decomposing. Irrelevant since the argument never talks about the products made from trees.

IMO E is correct.
The argument concludes that harvesting old trees will reduce carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. E weakens the argument by stating that young forests will take take many years to grown into the size of old forest, meaning more carbon dioxide will exist in atmosphere with greater young forests than old forests.
Join the discussion

by shoh0ku » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:25 am
B cannot be correct because it talks about products, which are made out of old trees, decomposing. Irrelevant since the argument never talks about the products made from trees.

IMO E is correct.
The argument concludes that harvesting old trees will reduce carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. E weakens the argument by stating that young forests will take take many years to grown into the size of old forest, meaning more carbon dioxide will exist in atmosphere with greater young forests than old forests.
Join the discussion

by madhur_ahuja » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:26 am
matt.lopz wrote:
Logging industry official: Harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, since when large old trees die in the forest they decompose, releasing their stored carbon dioxide. Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the official’s argument?

(A) Many old-growth forests are the home of thousands of animal species that would be endangered if the forests were to be destroyed.

(B) Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly.

(C) A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide present in forests is eventually released when wood and other organic debris found on the forest floor decompose.

(E) It can take many years for the trees of a newly planted forest to reach the size of those found in existing old-growth forests.
ANSWER:

Premise 1: When large old trees die in the forest they decompose, releasing their stored carbon dioxide.

Additional Premise 2
: Harvesting old-growth forests would, moreover, make room for rapidly growing young trees, which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than do trees in old-growth forests.

Conclusion: Harvesting trees from old-growth forests for use in manufacture can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Prove that: The amount of Carbon dioxide released in atmosphere does NOT reduce


(A) Many old-growth forests are the home of thousands of animal species that would be endangered if the forests were to be destroyed. OUT OF SCOPE.

(B) Much of the organic matter from old-growth trees, unusable as lumber, is made into products that decompose rapidly. CORRECT ANSWER!

(C) A young tree contains less than half the amount of carbon dioxide that is stored in an old tree of the same species. IRRELEVANT DETAIL.

(D) Much of the carbon dioxide present in forests is eventually released when wood and other organic debris found on the forest floor decompose. IRRELEVANT DETAIL.

(E) It can take many years for the trees of a newly planted forest to reach the size of those found in existing old-growth forests. IRRELEVANT DETAIL.
This is the nice explanation. OA is B
Join the discussion

by arorag » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:22 pm
But how the organic matters help in reducing CO2???
help me to understand this.
Join the discussion

by Spring2009 » Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:46 pm
arorag wrote:But how the organic matters help in reducing CO2???
help me to understand this.
No, CO2 does not decrease because after organic matters decompose, they release CO2.
Join the discussion

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 3:17 pm
In my opinion B is the most logical one.
Join the discussion