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.

Partially biodegradable plastic

Expert replies
by sk8ternite » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:14 am
One variety of a partially biodegradable plastic beverage container is manufactured from small bits of plastic bound together by a degradable bonding agent such as cornstarch. Since only the bonding agent degrades, leaving the small bits of plastic, no less plastic refuse per container is produced when such containers are discarded than when comparable nonbiodegradable containers are discarded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument above?

(a) Both partially biodegradable and non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers can be crushed completely flat by refuse compactors
(b) The partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers are made with more plastic than comparable nonbiodegradable ones in order to compensate for the weakening effect of the bonding agents
(c) Many consumers are ecology-minded and prefer to buy a product sold in partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers rather than in nonbiodegradable containers, even if the price is higher.
(d) The manufacturing process for partially biodegradable plastic beverage containers results in less plastic waste than the manufacturing process for non-biodegradable plastic beverage containers
(e) Technological problems with recycling currently prevent the reuse as food or beverage containers of the plastic from either type of plastic beverage container

Answer is b. Don't understand how that strengthens the argument. Explanation.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Sharma_Gaurav » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:13 pm
i will pick B as the answer.

since C, D and E are not having effect on argument or are out of scope.

A is not strengthening as well

B gives support for conclusion that both container will produce same amount of plastic refuse.
Join the discussion

by raghavsarathy » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:30 pm
Argument : The amount of plastic is not reduced even if the bottles are made of small plastic pieces and are attached with bonding agent.

Weaken : We can weaken this argument by saying that the bonding agent now forms a part of the material which is used to make the bottle. So if 1000 gms of platic is needed to make the bottle , with the bonding agent present , 900 gms will be plastic and 100gms will be bonding agent. So this will produce only 900gms platic . Hence weakened.

But what can happen to this bottle ? It will be weak because the plastic is lesser and the bonding agent is more. To compensate for this more plastic will be used say 1000gms plastic and 100 gms bonding agent. This again contains 1000gms plactic which is non-degradable. Hence the argument is strengthened.

This is what B does.

Hope this helps.
Join the discussion

by papgust » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:51 pm
Sorry for reopening this thread! Few days back, i came across this question in OG. Somehow, I'm not able to catch the crux of the argument. Particularly i'm confused by the phrase "no less plastic refuse per container". Can someone explain the argument in detail and the answer choice as well?
Join the discussion

by thephoenix » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:44 am
papgust wrote:Sorry for reopening this thread! Few days back, i came across this question in OG. Somehow, I'm not able to catch the crux of the argument. Particularly i'm confused by the phrase "no less plastic refuse per container". Can someone explain the argument in detail and the answer choice as well?
the conclusion for above argument is that
plastic refuse/container produced from discarding of container made from bounding small bits of plastic (by biodegradable bonding agent) = plastic refuse produced from nonbiodegradable container....

here the author is assuming that it should be less for former one as it uses less plastic , but it is infact same

hence a correct ans to support the conclusion is one which tells y it is so

B clearly tells that the container produced from samll bits contain more plastic and hence proves the equality
Join the discussion

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:23 pm
I will Go with option B in this case.
Join the discussion

by vnigam21 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:34 am
papgust wrote:Sorry for reopening this thread! Few days back, i came across this question in OG. Somehow, I'm not able to catch the crux of the argument. Particularly i'm confused by the phrase "no less plastic refuse per container". Can someone explain the argument in detail and the answer choice as well?
Here goes the explanation,

No less plastic refuse per container is produced when biodegradable containers are discarded than when comparable non-biodegradable containers are discarded.

No less plastic refuse per container can mean - equal or more amounts of plastic refuse per container is produced. This is the main CRUX of this argument. So, B is the correct answer.
Join the discussion