BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Nice ! Parallel Reasoning Question
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
My Choice D. What is OA?
If I am wrong correct me
, If my post helped let me know by clicking the Thanks button
.
Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
It was a close call between options D and E and frankly i was in a fix to choose one of them. But i think i made an educated guess i.e option E just has a bit of an advantage over option D. So my answer is option E. well options D and E are very close indeed.
Has to Be between D and E
E differs from the stimulus in a very subtle way .
E differs from the stimulus in a very subtle way .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
It is D plain and simple because in stimulus- we are assuming that the world leaders would be un-willing to co-operate thus we have to be optimistic for inflation rate stability
similarly in D we are assuming that high cost overruns are not favorable hence the conclusion that vehicle safety is jeopardized.
similarly in D we are assuming that high cost overruns are not favorable hence the conclusion that vehicle safety is jeopardized.
Cheers !!
Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40
My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Quant 47-Striving for 50
Verbal 34-Striving for 40
My gmat journey :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/710-bblast-s ... 90735.html
My take on the GMAT RC :
https://www.beatthegmat.com/ways-to-bbla ... 90808.html
How to prepare before your MBA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upz46D7 ... TWBZF14TKW_
Think about what actions impact what - the cause and effect.
The statement is structured: "In order for x to happen, y is necessary. However, in order for y, z is necessary. Implying that z is not likely, x won't happen". The closest that comes to this is D, although I'm not crazy about how much more strongly worded the conclusion is (statement says not optimistic, while D says the outcome is unavoidable).
E looks appealing at first, but it differs in that reporting or not reporting company performance (y) doesn't impact whether or not honesty is the best policy (x). There's no cause and effect. Because of this, the conclusion doesn't refer back to x like the original statement does, but to y. A and B are similar in that y doesn't really cause x.
C is flips things around, but is initially similar. "y is necessary for x to happen. In order for y, z is necessary." So far so good - even though the order of the first condition got flipped around, the structure is essentially the same. However, the next part "Therefore, x is only possible if z" doesn't imply that z is not likely.
The statement is structured: "In order for x to happen, y is necessary. However, in order for y, z is necessary. Implying that z is not likely, x won't happen". The closest that comes to this is D, although I'm not crazy about how much more strongly worded the conclusion is (statement says not optimistic, while D says the outcome is unavoidable).
E looks appealing at first, but it differs in that reporting or not reporting company performance (y) doesn't impact whether or not honesty is the best policy (x). There's no cause and effect. Because of this, the conclusion doesn't refer back to x like the original statement does, but to y. A and B are similar in that y doesn't really cause x.
C is flips things around, but is initially similar. "y is necessary for x to happen. In order for y, z is necessary." So far so good - even though the order of the first condition got flipped around, the structure is essentially the same. However, the next part "Therefore, x is only possible if z" doesn't imply that z is not likely.













