Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 17:14 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 17:14 |
|
|
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.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT- Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. 
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0410:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
We’ve worked incredibly hard to build TTP into the best test prep experience possible, and it would mean a lot to us to win Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep. If TTP has helped you, we’d be incredibly grateful for your vote.
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
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!
22 Dec 2021, 05:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
AnishPassi GMATNinja @veritaskarishma
Hi-
I know why D is the correct answer.
However, i am not sure abt why A is the wrong answer.
If some recyclable material is incinerated, and number of truckloads are reduced to half (to reduce ash generated to half of last years ash) then ash generated would me more! In that case- this is required right?
The way I eliminated it was that- Option D did a better job in weakening the option. But want to understand, why exacltly this option is wrong based on my thought process. Thanks
Hi-
I know why D is the correct answer.
However, i am not sure abt why A is the wrong answer.
If some recyclable material is incinerated, and number of truckloads are reduced to half (to reduce ash generated to half of last years ash) then ash generated would me more! In that case- this is required right?
The way I eliminated it was that- Option D did a better job in weakening the option. But want to understand, why exacltly this option is wrong based on my thought process. Thanks
