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.

peculiar columnar

Expert replies
by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 2:34 am
Source: Kaplan Verbal Workbook

The cause of the peculiar columnar growth pattern displayed by junipers growing near burning underground veins of lignite coal has never been convincingly explained. Until recently, the accepted theory posited that the abundance of carbon monoxide in the local atmosphere caused the columnar growth. However, a new theory holds that the cause is the persistent heat present near these underground fires which, while not intense enough to inflame the trees, can nonetheless change their normal growth pattern.

The existence of which of the following would provide the strongest support for the new theory?

A. A columnar juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and an absence of carbon monoxide.
B. A normal juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and an absence of carbon monoxide.
C. A columnar juniper growing in an atmosphere of normal heat and a high concentration of carbon monoxide.
D. A normal juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and a high concentration of carbon monoxide.
E. A columnar juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and a high concentration of carbon monoxide.

OA: A

Please explain
Last edited by akhpad on Tue May 25, 2010 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by paes » Tue May 25, 2010 2:39 am
IMO A
Join the discussion

by liferocks » Tue May 25, 2010 2:44 am
I will go with B

Here the argument is columnar growth pattern displayed by junipers is result of persistent heat not of the abundance of carbon monoxide in the local atmosphere.

If ' A normal juniper growing in an atmosphere of intense heat and an absence of carbon monoxide. ' shows similar columnar growth pattern this theory will be proved.Hence option B.
"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
Lewis Carroll
Join the discussion

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 3:40 am
paes wrote:IMO A
Such comment is not helpful.
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Tue May 25, 2010 3:45 am
akhp77 wrote:
paes wrote:IMO A
Such comment is not helpful.
accepted theory says X caused Y. New theory says Z caused Y. How can we strengthen the stance of New theory??

St A brings in the fact that Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present.

X: Carbon Monoxide
Y: Columnar growth in Junipers
Z: Heat liberated by lignite coal

prasad bhai, i think that :"normal Juniper" is just a red herring/ distractor. U can disgard those words that comes out of scope !!

Plz reconnect my reasoning with CR bible 5 ways of strengthening. It will make sense!!
Join the discussion

by akhpad » Tue May 25, 2010 4:18 am
gmatmachoman wrote: accepted theory says X caused Y. New theory says Z caused Y. How can we strengthen the stance of New theory??

St A brings in the fact that Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present.

X: Carbon Monoxide
Y: Columnar growth in Junipers
Z: Heat liberated by lignite coal

prasad bhai, i think that :"normal Juniper" is just a red herring/ distractor. U can disgard those words that comes out of scope !!

Plz reconnect my reasoning with CR bible 5 ways of strengthening. It will make sense!!
Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present. => This is strengthening the new theory and weakening the old theory.

I believe that this is ok.

I was having difficulty to understand stimulus.

Thanks
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Tue May 25, 2010 4:32 am
akhp77 wrote:
gmatmachoman wrote: accepted theory says X caused Y. New theory says Z caused Y. How can we strengthen the stance of New theory??

St A brings in the fact that Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present.

X: Carbon Monoxide
Y: Columnar growth in Junipers
Z: Heat liberated by lignite coal

prasad bhai, i think that :"normal Juniper" is just a red herring/ distractor. U can disgard those words that comes out of scope !!

Plz reconnect my reasoning with CR bible 5 ways of strengthening. It will make sense!!
Y will happen in a environment even though X is not present & only Z is present. => This is strengthening the new theory and weakening the old theory.

I believe that this is ok.

I was having difficulty to understand stimulus.

Thanks
wow wow!! Thanked by Pheonix bhai & LR is something rewarding..hmm that makes sense!! but the worst part is i will be missing the grockit prize today becox of not knowing the timings!!

Thanks guys!
Join the discussion

by paes » Tue May 25, 2010 8:50 pm
akhp77 wrote:
paes wrote:IMO A
Such comment is not helpful.
agreed, I will take care.
Actually, that time OA was not there, So I was not willing to explain a doubtful answer.
The other point, it was looking straight forward to me.
Join the discussion