Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 03:46 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 03:46
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Weaken|            
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen Updated on: 28 Sep 2022, 10:05
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 28 Sep 2022, 09:34.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 28 Sep 2022, 10:05, edited 3 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi KarishmaB - i could not understand what the yellow bits in option (b) are really talking about

Quote:

(B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price.
Show more

What is the difference between re-processed (First yellow highlight) vs processed ?

Is re-processed -- AFTER the Re-cycle process
whereas
Processed raw materials - PRIOR to the re-cycle process

Thx
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 28 Sep 2022, 10:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If above is true, here is my attempt to understand (B)

Quote:

First my understanding of the re-cycle process
-- All garbage is collected
-- Recyclable waste is seprated from Non Recyclable waste
-- Everything Recyclable is put into a machine
-- From the machine, comes out re-processed raw materials
-- Re-processed materials is sold to businesses to be used ONCE AGAIN as Raw materials
Show more

So (B) is saying :

-- only 20 % of all available Recyclable waste becomes Re-processed Raw materials

Why ?
-- Well, Only 20 % of all available Recyclable waste (i.e. the Re-processed Raw materials) matches the standard usually bussinesses expect when businesses buy (non-recycled raw materials)

Is that what (B) is saying ?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
 [1]
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 29 Sep 2022, 00:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi KarishmaB - i could not understand what the yellow bits in option (b) are really talking about

Quote:

(B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price.

What is the difference between re-processed (First yellow highlight) vs processed ?

Is re-processed -- AFTER the Re-cycle process
whereas
Processed raw materials - PRIOR to the re-cycle process

Thx
Show more

Consider how a product is made - say a plastic bucket.

Step 1:The manufacturer will acquire raw material e.g. plastic, some metal for the handle etc. Then he will process the raw material to make it usable in the manufacturing process. Then he will shape the processed raw material into a bucket.

Step 2: Now say, this bucket is thrown away but needs to be recycled. So the bucket will be flattened and processed with chemicals to bring it back into usable state (sheets etc) i.e. it will be reprocessed.

Step 3: Now the manufacturer of recycled raw material buckets will acquire these sheets which were already processed previously and then reprocessed to make sheets. Using these sheets, he will make buckets. But these reprocessed sheets must match the quality and price of processed raw material (when we were using it in step 1)

Today only 20% waste is recycled. This 20%, when reprocessed, matches the processed raw material in quality and price. Now what happens if we try to recycle 50% of waste? Then other 30% may not match the processed raw materials in quality and price (it may come at lower quality or higher price). Then recycling may not be profitable.
Then the proposal may not be advisable.
User avatar
VinnieSat
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Last visit: 10 Oct 2023
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
8
Given Kudos: 20
Posts: 4
Kudos: 8
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 30 Apr 2023, 05:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The proposal to require communities to adopt recycling and reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years may not be advisable if there is evidence that contradicts the benefits of recycling or suggests significant challenges in implementing the proposal.

Option (B) is a limitation of the existing recycling programs and does not directly question the advisability of implementing the proposal.

Option (D) suggests that some materials that can be recycled are better suited for incineration. This information may not necessarily undermine the environmental benefits of recycling, but it does suggest that recycling may not always be the most effective solution.

Option (E) suggests that incineration may also have challenges in handling certain materials, but it does not directly question the advisability of implementing the proposal.

Option (A) suggests that the level of citizen participation in existing recycling programs varies widely. This information implies that there may be challenges in achieving the required level of participation to meet the 50 percent target within the proposed timeframe. Therefore, option (A) is the best answer.

Option (C) suggests that existing recycling programs have difficulties finding purchasers for their materials. This information may also pose challenges in implementing the proposal, but it does not directly question the advisability of the proposal.

Therefore, the most serious challenge to the proposal is option (A).
User avatar
GMATking94
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jan 2022
Last visit: 18 Apr 2025
Posts: 180
Own Kudos:
75
Given Kudos: 125
Status:Do or Die
Location: India
Schools: IIMB '25 (A) IIMC '25 (A) IIMA '25 (D) ISB '25 (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V37
GPA: 4
WE:Operations (Energy)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: IIMB '25 (A) IIMC '25 (A) IIMA '25 (D) ISB '25 (I)
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V37
Posts: 180
Kudos: 75
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 01 May 2023, 08:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dushyantkanal
dj
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmentally preferable alternative to the prevailing practices of incineration and of dumping in landfills. Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate. A state legislator proposes that communities should therefore be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?

(A) Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizen participation ranging from 30 percent in some communities to 80 percent in others.

(B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price.

CR29111.01

Hello
I have a question wrt option A and B

As per 'A', existing programs, which are profitable and the base on which our state legislator frames his argument, are voluntary with citizen participation ranging from 30% to 80%.
This translates to free manpower and could be a reason for the programs to actually be profitable.
As per the argument, the adoption is only for recycling and not for voluntary service to these programs. IN colcusion, the manpower could lead to hiring and hence non profitable programs.

For option 'B' - the programs have been restricted to that 20%. The restriction has not really been elaborated upon and can be interpreted as levied upon by state or tech or lack of manpower, etc, etc. Hence eliminated.

Please advise here because I felt my logic was spot on but apparently not :geek:
Show more

A says - Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizen participation ranging from 30 percent in some communities to 80 percent in others. - This does nothing call into question the advisability of implementing the proposal. This provides some info only. Good to know.

On the flip side (B) says - Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price. - This weaken the point of recycling 50% in which case the processed waste will not match in quality and price and hence not be profitable as thought. So this clearly weakens the state legislatures proposal.

(B) is our answer.
User avatar
Saupayan
User avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Last visit: 23 May 2025
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
137
Given Kudos: 94
Status:Full-time employee
Affiliations: Apple Inc
Location: United States
Saupayan: Mazumdar
Concentration: Economics, Leadership
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GRE 1: Q170 V160
GPA: 3.89
WE:Engineering (Computer Hardware)
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V41
GRE 1: Q170 V160
Posts: 108
Kudos: 137
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 03 Sep 2023, 13:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATIntensive KarishmaB
I am not convinced of the reasons for eliminating A in favor of B. These are my reasons.

The argument (is short) is: Recycling is better for the environment, recycling has been done profitably before, so now everyone should recycle 50% of all solid waste.
We are looking for a weakener. The question stem specifically says the weakener should question the advisability of implementing the proposal

Now, according to me, neither A or B questions the advisability (i.e. wisdom/ whether it's sensible) of the proposal completely. Because neither of them address the environmental impact aspect for the arguement. (So I feel both of them are BAD options) But let's set that aside for a moment and assume we are addressing only the financial/profitability aspects.

option A says: you are looking at other programs that were profitable, but you are forgetting they were voluntary. So (some) people went out of their way to do this thing.
What can we infer? If we force this in other communities, then people may not be willing to be as helpful. If these people were indeed like the people who we are looking at for inspiration, these communities would probably already have such voluntary recycling facilities established.
Now how might this affect the profit margins? Well, we may have to provide (financial) incentive to people to actually dispose of their solid wastes in a manner conducive to recycling. We may need to provide transportation costs to get the wastes from their point of origination to the recycling centers. In short, anything that's voluntary is typically cheaper than an equivalent thing that isn't. IT WILL AFFECT MARGINS.

now option B gives us reason to believe the margins will be affected as well, I have no problem with that. But it does so in a vague way. It says only 20% of the recycled material can match processed raw materials in quality and price. Ok good for them, but so what? Does it mean the rest of it (that doesn't match the quality and price) is actually less profitable? No, we don't. It could be that they are worse quality and lower price but also, it takes WAY LESS TO PRODUCE in the first place. so even at lower prices, it gives higher profits.
Also, if we are really looking to push the issue and be literal, "only 20 percent can match" doesn't mean the "80% is worse". It can also mean "80% is better". All we are told is they aren't the same. Now, I recognize no one speaks in this way, and if this were a real answer on the GMAT I will be really pissed and reconsider the importance of GMAT, so I won't put too much weight to this (BAD) argument, but I just wanted to point out in the strictest literal sense this is possible.

But going back to the original question I had,
Why is option B better than option A?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 03 Sep 2023, 22:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Saupayan
GMATIntensive KarishmaB
I am not convinced of the reasons for eliminating A in favor of B. These are my reasons.

The argument (is short) is: Recycling is better for the environment, recycling has been done profitably before, so now everyone should recycle 50% of all solid waste.
We are looking for a weakener. The question stem specifically says the weakener should question the advisability of implementing the proposal

Now, according to me, neither A or B questions the advisability (i.e. wisdom/ whether it's sensible) of the proposal completely. Because neither of them address the environmental impact aspect for the arguement. (So I feel both of them are BAD options) But let's set that aside for a moment and assume we are addressing only the financial/profitability aspects.

option A says: you are looking at other programs that were profitable, but you are forgetting they were voluntary. So (some) people went out of their way to do this thing.
What can we infer? If we force this in other communities, then people may not be willing to be as helpful. If these people were indeed like the people who we are looking at for inspiration, these communities would probably already have such voluntary recycling facilities established.
Now how might this affect the profit margins? Well, we may have to provide (financial) incentive to people to actually dispose of their solid wastes in a manner conducive to recycling. We may need to provide transportation costs to get the wastes from their point of origination to the recycling centers. In short, anything that's voluntary is typically cheaper than an equivalent thing that isn't. IT WILL AFFECT MARGINS.

now option B gives us reason to believe the margins will be affected as well, I have no problem with that. But it does so in a vague way. It says only 20% of the recycled material can match processed raw materials in quality and price. Ok good for them, but so what? Does it mean the rest of it (that doesn't match the quality and price) is actually less profitable? No, we don't. It could be that they are worse quality and lower price but also, it takes WAY LESS TO PRODUCE in the first place. so even at lower prices, it gives higher profits.
Also, if we are really looking to push the issue and be literal, "only 20 percent can match" doesn't mean the "80% is worse". It can also mean "80% is better". All we are told is they aren't the same. Now, I recognize no one speaks in this way, and if this were a real answer on the GMAT I will be really pissed and reconsider the importance of GMAT, so I won't put too much weight to this (BAD) argument, but I just wanted to point out in the strictest literal sense this is possible.

But going back to the original question I had,
Why is option B better than option A?
Show more


The question is fine and so are all the options. What you need to do is look at it from real-life perspective. When a manager is looking for a solution for a specific problem, he needs to keep real life constraints in mind and cannot make do with idealism.

Recycling, in essence is using waste products to make fresh usable items. So, waste products (used and thrown away now) would be taken off the street and re-processed to make reusable. These would then be used by manufacturers to make products again which people will buy and use again (the bucket example I gave above)

What if the re-processed raw material is not unto the mark to make fresh products again? If it is worse quality and higher priced than fresh raw material (never used before), why will the manufacturer use recycled material? No, he will just use fresh raw material to make his products. Even if you force the manufacturer to use it, people will not buy goods at lower quality and higher price. A free economy will not support it.

Option (B) says that only 20% of re-processed material matches raw material in quality and price. So other 80% is lower quality and higher price. Then manufacturers will obviously use raw material and not this 80% re-processed material. Hence you will not find any use for this 80% re-processed material.
It will stay a waste (and will likely go to landfills) and you would have wasted money on re-processing it unnecessarily. Hence option (B) makes sense.
If recycling is not possible for this 80% material, how will you do it even if it is good for the environment?

Option (A) is incorrect. We cannot assume that if it becomes mandatory to recycle, people will not recycle. It's the reverse and no, Govts don't give positive re-inforcements to make people adhere to laws. They give people punishment if they do not adhere to laws. They will not be incentivising; they will be taking legal action against those who will not do it. Since most people live within the bounds of law, one can expect most people to recycle if it is made mandatory. It doesn't matter whether they are happy about it or not.
Also, even if 30% to 80% people recycle in different regions, what percent of the solid waste is actually getting recycled, we don't know. These people recycling could be the ones minimising waste in the first place and hence their waste could be responsible for say only 20% of the solid waste. Even if in some communities number of people recycling is proportional to the amount of product recycled, it is certainly less than 50% overall and that is why the proposal to target 50%.
Option (A) does not weaken the proposal.
User avatar
Raman109
User avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 28 Jul 2025
Posts: 805
Own Kudos:
170
Given Kudos: 33
Posts: 805
Kudos: 170
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 06 Sep 2023, 07:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In option A - One half is already doing 80%, and the other 30%. We need to work on increasing 30% to 50% - this is in no way a weakner - it's all going in a positive direction toward meeting the plan.

In Option B - If the production capacity is restricted to 20% unless there is something in the plan to increase that, the plan seems nonviable. It's as good as saying, let's increase the inventory of goods to produce 1000 units in 5 days with a production line peak capacity of 10 final units per day—A useless plan.

Option C - With an increase in more products to be recycled, this obstruction can be solved.

Option D - Some can be at least 2, not relevant. Moreover, here, even better - no pollution.

Option E - Not relevant. We are here concerned about materials that can be recycled.
User avatar
naveengmat15
User avatar
Joined: 08 Aug 2023
Last visit: 17 Oct 2024
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
15
Given Kudos: 42
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 4
WE:Architecture (Real Estate)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 71
Kudos: 15
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 07 Sep 2023, 08:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Recycling is preferable to incineration and dumping in landfills.
Recycling is profitable too.

Proposal: Legislator proposes that communities should be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

We need to question the proposal i.e. what would question the advisability of implementing the proposal? The thing that comes to my mind is that a 50% limit has been set. What if 50% things are not recyclable?

hence B
User avatar
Shahzer
User avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2023
Last visit: 19 Mar 2024
Posts: 44
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
Posts: 44
Kudos: 23
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 21 Sep 2023, 09:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello

In my opinion, Option B is correct because of a different reason than the one mentioned in the entire thread.
Option B says that " Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price."

The "that 20 percent of solid waste that when reprocessed can match price" means that only 20% of all the solid wastes are profitable or breakeven and recycling is only possible/unrestricted to that 20% chunk. Rest of the 80% is probably profitable since it cannot match processed raw materials in quality and price.

Therefore, if only 20% of all solid wastes are profitable or breakevening, just asking communities to increase recycling doesnt make sense. What if the majority of the waste that the communities generate fall into the 80% non profitable type.

Hence, B weakens the advise.
User avatar
YashYashkratos
User avatar
Joined: 27 Nov 2022
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 87
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 20
Posts: 87
Kudos: 9
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 15 Oct 2023, 05:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
question is focused on profitability and the plan's effectiveness to achieve it.
B) is the only option that says it cannot be done as a lot of the addition to the recycling cannot be used or sold as other finished quality products.
User avatar
VasundharaS
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jan 2020
Last visit: 25 Aug 2025
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 99
Location: India
GPA: 8.07
Posts: 28
Kudos: 6
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 25 May 2025, 10:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Confused bw b and c - chose c ; dont understand why b
dj
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmentally preferable alternative to the prevailing practices of incineration and of dumping in landfills. Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate. A state legislator proposes that communities should therefore be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?

(A) Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizen participation ranging from 30 percent in some communities to 80 percent in others.

(B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price.

(C) Existing recycling programs have had recurrent difficulties finding purchasers for their materials usually because of quantities too small to permit cost-effective pickup and transportation.

(D) Some of the materials that can be recycled are the very materials that, when incinerated, produce the least pollution.

(E) Many of the materials that cannot be recycled are also difficult to incinerate.

CR29111.01
Show more
User avatar
km0808
User avatar
Joined: 27 Apr 2025
Last visit: 20 Jun 2025
Posts: 10
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 10
Kudos: 0
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 03 Jun 2025, 06:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmentally preferable alternative to the prevailing practices of incineration and of dumping in landfills. Recycling is profitable, as the recycling programs already in operation demonstrate. A state legislator proposes that communities should therefore be required to adopt recycling and to reach the target of recycling 50 percent of all solid waste within 5 years.

given env preferable and profitable -> 50 % should be done

prethinking 50% recycling is not profitable

Which of the following, if true, most seriously calls into question the advisability of implementing the proposal?

(A) Existing recycling programs have been voluntary, with citizen participation ranging from 30 percent in some communities to 80 percent in others.

(B) Existing recycling programs have been restricted to that 20 percent of solid waste that, when reprocessed, can match processed raw materials in quality and price. (in line with our prethinking)

(C) Existing recycling programs have had recurrent difficulties finding purchasers for their materials usually because of quantities too small to permit cost-effective pickup and transportation.

(D) Some of the materials that can be recycled are the very materials that, when incinerated, produce the least pollution.

(E) Many of the materials that cannot be recycled are also difficult to incinerate.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,884
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,884
The recycling of municipal solid waste is widely seen as an environmen 29 Sep 2025, 09:12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This is a classic GMAT Critical Reasoning weaken question about recycling policy. Let me walk you through how to think about this one - it's actually quite elegant once you see the key insight.

Let's start by understanding what's happening here:

The legislator's argument follows this logic:
- Recycling is environmentally better than burning or landfilling waste ✓
- Current recycling programs are profitable ✓
- Therefore → All communities should be required to recycle 50% of waste in 5 years

Notice how the legislator uses the word "therefore" - that's your signal that they're drawing a conclusion from the premises above.

Here's what you need to see to crack this question:

When we're asked to weaken the advisability of implementing this proposal, we need to find something that shows why what works now might NOT work when scaled up to the proposed requirements.

Step 1: Identify the assumption
The legislator assumes that because some recycling is profitable, recycling 50% of all waste will also be profitable (or at least feasible).

Step 2: Look for the scale problem
Think about it - what if current programs are only profitable because they're cherry-picking the easiest materials to recycle?

Step 3: Evaluate Answer Choice B
This is where the magic happens! Choice B tells us that existing programs only handle 20% of solid waste - specifically, the 20% that can match raw materials in quality and price.

Let's think about what this means:
- Current profitable programs: Recycling 20% (the easy stuff)
- Proposed mandate: Recycling 50% (20% easy + 30% harder stuff)

See the problem? To hit 50%, communities would need to recycle an additional 30% of waste that presumably can't match raw materials in quality and price. This directly undermines the profitability claim!

Why other choices don't work as well:
- Choice A (participation rates): Doesn't challenge advisability - mandatory rules would fix participation
- Choice C (finding buyers): Could actually support the proposal - more volume might solve this
- Choice D & E: Minor considerations that don't seriously challenge the core proposal

The answer is B.

---

You can check out the step-by-step solution on Neuron by e-GMAT to master the systematic approach for identifying scope shifts in weaken questions. This pattern appears frequently in GMAT CR, and understanding it will help you spot similar traps quickly. You can also explore other GMAT official questions with detailed solutions on Neuron for structured practice here.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts