Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
14 Oct 2020, 15:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
imSKR
Thanks for the question imSKR! It seems like a lot of people are unsure about why D is a better answer than A, so let's look at both:
(A) This year, no materials that city services could separate for recycling will be incinerated.
Okay, I see why this sounds like a good answer. If recycling is not incinerated, then there will be less ash put into the air. That makes sense. However, we don't know for sure that recycling makes up HALF of all refuse picked up in the city. We just know there is enough of it to reduce the number of refuse truck pickups by half. For all we know, these trucks may end up picking up MORE refuse per load than they used to because they have to cover for the reduced number of available trucks. How much trash ends up in each of those truck loads is not mentioned at all here. Will these trucks pick up 50% less stuff overall if you take out recycling? We don't know. Therefore - this isn't the best option.
(D) The refuse incinerated this year will generate no more residual ash per truckload incinerated than did the refuse incinerated last year.
This is a much better choice! For this system to work, each truck MUST NOT generate any more burnable trash than last year to get to the 50% goal:
If 50% fewer trucks each pick up the SAME AMOUNT per load that they did last year, then they will meet their goal.
If 50% fewer trucks each pick up MORE per load than they did last year, then they will not meet their goal.
We hope this helps!
11 Jan 2021, 23:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Last year all refuse collected by Shelbyville city services was incinerated. This incineration generated a large quantity of residual ash. In order to reduce the amount of residual ash Shelbyville generates this year to half of last year's total, the city has revamped its collection program. This year city services will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated to half of last year's number.
P: Last year all of the refuse collected was incinerated which led to a large quantity of ash
P: Shelbyville revamped its collection program to reduce the ash to half of last year’s total
C: Shelbyville will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce the # of truckloads to be incinerated to half
Which of the following is required for the revamped collection program to achieve its aim?
(A) This year, no materials that city services could separate for recycling will be incinerated.
Argument still works…we can still see a reduction in the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated.
(B) Separating recyclable materials from materials to be incinerated will cost Shelbyville less than half what it cost last year to dispose of the residual ash.
No. This presumably strengthens the argument, but the passage won’t break even if this were not true. We don’t have any specific details about the city’s financial capacity.
(C) Refuse collected by city services will contain a larger proportion of recyclable materials this year than it did last year.
No. The key here is to focus on the word proportion. It’s really not clear which way this choice takes us. For example, you could have a larger proportion of recyclables and yet the absolute amount of refuse collected could be higher. On the other hand, you could have a larger proportion of recyclables and less refuse.
(D) The refuse incinerated this year will generate no more residual ash per truckload incinerated than did the refuse incinerated last year.
Correct. Negating this reveals something that would destroy the argument all together. The goal of the revamped collection program is to reduce the quantity of residual ash. If it turns out that their program actually leads to the production of more residual ash, then there’s no reason to think that this year’s total will be half than that of last year’s.
(E) The total quantity of refuse collected by Shelbyville city service's this year will be no greater than that collected last year.
I wasn’t particularly sure what to make of this, my thinking was that if the total amount of refuse increased irrespective of the fact that the number of trucks is cut in half, then shouldn’t the total amount of ash increase?
GMATNinja What do you think about my reasoning for E?
P: Last year all of the refuse collected was incinerated which led to a large quantity of ash
P: Shelbyville revamped its collection program to reduce the ash to half of last year’s total
C: Shelbyville will separate for recycling enough refuse to reduce the # of truckloads to be incinerated to half
Which of the following is required for the revamped collection program to achieve its aim?
(A) This year, no materials that city services could separate for recycling will be incinerated.
Argument still works…we can still see a reduction in the number of truckloads of refuse to be incinerated.
(B) Separating recyclable materials from materials to be incinerated will cost Shelbyville less than half what it cost last year to dispose of the residual ash.
No. This presumably strengthens the argument, but the passage won’t break even if this were not true. We don’t have any specific details about the city’s financial capacity.
(C) Refuse collected by city services will contain a larger proportion of recyclable materials this year than it did last year.
No. The key here is to focus on the word proportion. It’s really not clear which way this choice takes us. For example, you could have a larger proportion of recyclables and yet the absolute amount of refuse collected could be higher. On the other hand, you could have a larger proportion of recyclables and less refuse.
(D) The refuse incinerated this year will generate no more residual ash per truckload incinerated than did the refuse incinerated last year.
Correct. Negating this reveals something that would destroy the argument all together. The goal of the revamped collection program is to reduce the quantity of residual ash. If it turns out that their program actually leads to the production of more residual ash, then there’s no reason to think that this year’s total will be half than that of last year’s.
(E) The total quantity of refuse collected by Shelbyville city service's this year will be no greater than that collected last year.
I wasn’t particularly sure what to make of this, my thinking was that if the total amount of refuse increased irrespective of the fact that the number of trucks is cut in half, then shouldn’t the total amount of ash increase?
GMATNinja What do you think about my reasoning for E?
19 Jan 2021, 22:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
CEdward
(E) is a bit tricky. But like we said in our previous post, the amount of refuse collected is not the author’s primary concern. Rather, the author is interested in the amount of refuse incinerated. It’s possible that the amount of refuse collected increases, but the amount of refuse incinerated is cut in half. For that reason, (E) is not required for the revamped collection program to achieve its aim, and we can eliminate it.
I hope that helps!
