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.

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