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.

1000 CR doubt

Expert replies
by aiming800 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:11 am
Hi Guys,
I need help with the below CR question. Please post your choice along with the explanation.GMAT

instructors,please help!!!



Statement of a United States copper mining company: Import quotas should be imposed on the less expensive copper mined outside the country to maintain the price of copper in this country; otherwise, our companies will not be able to stay in business.
Response of a United States copper wire manufacturer: United States wire and cable manufacturers purchase about 70 percent of the copper mined in the United States. If the copper prices we pay are not at the international level, our sales will drop, and then the demand for United States copper will go down.
If the factual information presented by both companies is accurate, the best assessment of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the wire manufacturer's argument
(A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company
(B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company
(C) shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company's own business
(D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business
(E) establishes that even the mining company's business will prosper if the mining company's proposal is rejected


Cheers,
:)
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Giorgio » Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:51 am
Join the discussion

by aiming800 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:27 pm
Hi Giorgio,

Thanks for your reply but as stated in my post i am expecting the answers with the corresponding explanations.


GMAT experts/instructors please help me out with the above question.


Thanks.
Join the discussion

by Phirozz » Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:24 pm
(A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company. This is my answer
(B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company. Mining co is seeking for imposing import duty on imported mined copper whereas wire manufacturing co is concerned about prices at international level for its own benefit. So both are not related to each other. So eliminated
(C) shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company’s own business. out of scope
(D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business. copper wire co is not attempting to provide reason for not implementing mining co's proposal rather it is concerned about itself. so eliminated(E) establishes that even the mining company’s business will prosper if the mining company’s proposal is rejected. Irrelevant. against mining co's proposal.
Join the discussion

by aiming800 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:54 pm
Thanks Phirozz.Even in my view the answer should be A, but unfortunately the OA is C.


Now i am not able to understand the logic behind the OA.


Can i find some help from the GMAT instructors on this?
Join the discussion

by Phirozz » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:01 pm
aiming800 wrote:Thanks Phirozz.Even in my view the answer should be A, but unfortunately the OA is C.


Now i am not able to understand the logic behind the OA.


Can i find some help from the GMAT instructors on this?
Answer is C only. OA is right. Last sentence of copper mining co's stamement create confusion, but we are looking from cable manufacturers' point of view. So its completely right.
thanx
Join the discussion

by nervesofsteel » Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:38 am
aiming800 wrote:Hi Guys,
I need help with the below CR question. Please post your choice along with the explanation.GMAT

instructors,please help!!!



Statement of a United States copper mining company: Import quotas should be imposed on the less expensive copper mined outside the country to maintain the price of copper in this country; otherwise, our companies will not be able to stay in business.
Response of a United States copper wire manufacturer: United States wire and cable manufacturers purchase about 70 percent of the copper mined in the United States. If the copper prices we pay are not at the international level, our sales will drop, and then the demand for United States copper will go down.
If the factual information presented by both companies is accurate, the best assessment of the logical relationship between the two arguments is that the wire manufacturer's argument
(A) is self-serving and irrelevant to the proposal of the mining company
(B) is circular, presupposing what it seeks to prove about the proposal of the mining company
(C) shows that the proposal of the mining company would have a negative effect on the mining company's own business
(D) fails to give a reason why the proposal of the mining company should not be put into effect to alleviate the concern of the mining company for staying in business
(E) establishes that even the mining company's business will prosper if the mining company's proposal is rejected


Cheers,
:)
Here is my take....

Mining company is favoring import quota for cheap imports
and Wire manufacturer is going for cheap prices of copper they get from international market...

as wire manufacturer says that they consume 70% of copper from US origin..
they use 30% from outside and if prices of 30% of copper will increase , the demand for
70% copper will also decrease ...due to lack of overall demand

SO proposal of Mining company will have negative impact on itself...

SO C is the ans
Join the discussion

by Pdgmat2010 » Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:44 am
since the question asks us to look from the Wire manufacturer's perspective,
i believe C should be right.

For the same reasoning as above
70% domestic CU + 30% international CU = current cu cost is lower

70% domestic CU + 30% international CU ( NOW more expensive) = overall expense is more

which in turn might indicate that the demand is lowered, leading to an overall reduction in consumption.
this will affect US mining companies more.
Join the discussion