Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 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
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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
GMATOnDemandStart 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

a cr from gmat

Expert replies
by diebeatsthegmat » Mon May 09, 2011 9:07 am
Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute the strongest objection to the executives argument?

A. Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.

B. Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.

C. New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.

D. Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.

E. Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since.

i dont understand why the answer is C since C just cares of large cars while the question here is just about smaller cars.
Argument is that they cant produce small cars because it is making more accidents causing death and we have to opposit that argument. i dont understand, can you please explain
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by pemdas » Mon May 09, 2011 9:35 am
the argument builds the link between a fuel efficiency and size of cars as the required necessity. Then argument opposes the fuel efficiency guidelines based on the fatality rates of big cars vs. small cars; the argument tries to reinstate the big cars and discontinue the fuel efficiency for the reason of fatality. The argument mistakenly considers a car size as the only CAUSE for achieving the fuel efficiency EFFECT. Answer C suggests an alternative CAUSE to achieve the same EFFECT - computerized fuel efficiency system.
Success doesn't come overnight!
Join the discussion

by Tani » Mon May 09, 2011 8:34 pm
The stimulus says that small cars had more fatalities and concludes that we shouldn't produce more fuel efficient cars. The assumption is that the only way to make cars more fuel efficient is to make them smaller. C tells us we can, in fact, make cars more fuel efficient without making them smaller, thereby killing the argument.
Tani Wolff
Join the discussion