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.

1000 CR - good one

Expert replies
by shekhar.kataria » Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:41 am
Friends, this CR question from LSAT has been discussed many times but didnt provide any explaininations with the correct answer A . Also please explain wazz wrong with C.

There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before
being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation
of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor
scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from
careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and
rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain
disconfirmatory results.\

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken the argument?

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are
replicated.
(B) Most scientists work in universities, where their work is submitted to peer
review before publication.
(C) Most scientists are under pressure to make their work accessible to the scrutiny
of replication.
(D) In scientific experiments, careless reporting is more common than fraud.
(E) Most scientists work as part of a team rather than alone.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by shovan85 » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:22 pm
shekhar.kataria wrote: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before
being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation
of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor
scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from
careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and
rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain
disconfirmatory results.
Passage is saying "Let Sc Work be published before Officially getting it confirmed". We need to weaken this.

Premises say "System gets the work confirmed by checking the replication and if 1 scientist whether he is careless or fraud his contribution is No Harm to the work as it will be exposed when the work is dis confirmed".

When this Argument is weakened? When we find some options saying "These non confirmed publications are causing some problems" or "Once published there is very little chance of getting it verified by the System"....

please read from E to A here as A is correct one

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. Left after POE. This actually weakens the argument by saying Wrong work will be published for a long time without being verified.
(B) Talking about scientists in General, so we cannot make generalization about "scientists working in universities"
(C) They are under pressure as it will be verified by the system. So they may make mistake, which will harm their work. And may get dis confirmed. But Argument says Publish it. Verification is a later thing. Clearly, work is being published; this is what mentioned in the argument also. Now its sure that this option is NOT weakening it.
(D) Degree of carelessness or Fraud is NOT comparable as Premise says "It does not matter". Against Premise.
(E) They are a Team worker but what about Publishing and getting it verified? Out Of Scope.
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Join the discussion

by shekhar.kataria » Tue Oct 26, 2010 1:32 pm
shovan85 wrote:
shekhar.kataria wrote: There is no reason why the work of scientists has to be officially confirmed before
being published. There is a system in place for the confirmation or disconfirmation
of scientific finding, namely, the replication of results by other scientists. Poor
scientific work on the part of any one scientist, which can include anything from
careless reporting practices to fraud, is not harmful. It will be exposed and
rendered harmless when other scientists conduct the experiments and obtain
disconfirmatory results.
Passage is saying "Let Sc Work be published before Officially getting it confirmed". We need to weaken this.

Premises say "System gets the work confirmed by checking the replication and if 1 scientist whether he is careless or fraud his contribution is No Harm to the work as it will be exposed when the work is dis confirmed".

When this Argument is weakened? When we find some options saying "These non confirmed publications are causing some problems" or "Once published there is very little chance of getting it verified by the System"....

please read from E to A here as A is correct one

(A) Scientific experiments can go unchallenged for many years before they are replicated. Left after POE. This actually weakens the argument by saying Wrong work will be published for a long time without being verified.
(B) Talking about scientists in General, so we cannot make generalization about "scientists working in universities"
(C) They are under pressure as it will be verified by the system. So they may make mistake, which will harm their work. And may get dis confirmed. But Argument says Publish it. Verification is a later thing. Clearly, work is being published; this is what mentioned in the argument also. Now its sure that this option is NOT weakening it.
(D) Degree of carelessness or Fraud is NOT comparable as Premise says "It does not matter". Against Premise.
(E) They are a Team worker but what about Publishing and getting it verified? Out Of Scope.
Thanks Shovan for the quick response.
Join the discussion