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.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE AWARDS 2026

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

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.

PREP CR

Expert replies
by czarczar » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:37 pm
From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(A) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.
(B) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.
(C) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
(D) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.
(E) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas aluminum cans required no sorting.

OA: c

Guys I narrowed to A and C. But was not able to find any reason to rule out A.

Please explain the reasoning. :)

Thanks.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Ozlemg » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:45 pm
czarczar wrote:From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(A) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.
(B) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.
(C) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
(D) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.
(E) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas aluminum cans required no sorting.

OA: c

Guys I narrowed to A and C. But was not able to find any reason to rule out A.

Please explain the reasoning. :)

Thanks.
for me, A is the trick because passage and option uses similar words to fool us : "weight" of the glass bottles ... and ..."heavier than"
but this does not explain the issue at hand. it does not help solve the paradox. glass bottles are heavier so? is this the reason behind increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminium but declining percentage of garbage that contains glass? NO...
C solved the paradox. The reason behind this decline is more glass bottles are replaced by plastic containers than does aluminium.
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Join the discussion

by czarczar » Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:52 pm
Ozlemg wrote:
czarczar wrote:From 1978 to 1988, beverage containers accounted for a steadily decreasing percentage of the total weight of household garbage in the United States. The increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminum and glass was responsible for most of this decline. However, although aluminum recycling was more widely practiced in this period than glass recycling, it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.

Which of the following, if true of the United States in the period 1978 to 1988, most helps to account for the finding?

(A) Glass bottles are significantly heavier than aluminum cans of comparable size.
(B) Recycled aluminum cans were almost all beverage containers, but a significant fraction of the recycled glass bottles had contained products other than beverages.
(C) Manufacturers replaced many glass bottles, but few aluminum cans, with plastic containers.
(D) The total weight of glass bottles purchased by households increased at a slightly faster rate than the total weight of aluminum cans.
(E) In many areas, glass bottles had to be sorted by color of the glass before being recycled, whereas aluminum cans required no sorting.

OA: c

Guys I narrowed to A and C. But was not able to find any reason to rule out A.

Please explain the reasoning. :)

Thanks.
for me, A is the trick because passage and option uses similar words to fool us : "weight" of the glass bottles ... and ..."heavier than"
but this does not explain the issue at hand. it does not help solve the paradox. glass bottles are heavier so? is this the reason behind increasingly widespread practice of recycling aluminium but declining percentage of garbage that contains glass? NO...
C solved the paradox. The reason behind this decline is more glass bottles are replaced by plastic containers than does aluminium.

What I thought on this one was that:

glass bottles weight more then alminum cans. So even though more cans of alminum are not now thrown. The reduction in weight of glass bottles is more because they weight more.

suppose if 10 alminum cans weight equal to 2 glass bottles then even if we remove 8 cans and two bottles the decrease in weight for bottles will be more. And as per me it resolves the paradox.
Join the discussion

by Frankenstein » Sun Aug 28, 2011 7:29 pm
Hi,
it was found that the weight of glass bottles in household garbage declined by a greater percentage than the weight of aluminum cans.
So, the comparison is not between weights of glass and aluminium cans. It is between the percentage of weights decreased. So, it directly depends on the percentage of cans being replaced and is independent of weight of each can as weights get cancelled when calculating percentage of weight decrease.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise
Join the discussion

by navami » Mon Aug 29, 2011 6:23 am
Clearly C
This time no looking back!!!
Navami
Join the discussion