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.

American Electoral

Expert replies
by sivaelectric » Mon May 30, 2011 7:10 am
The American electoral system clearly possesses deep flaws and must be discarded in favor of a more fair and just system. In several recent elections, candidates who were leading in pre-election polls failed to win election to office.

The suggestion that the american electoral system must be discarded most strongly depends on which of the following assumptions?
  • A. The candidates leading in pre-election polls won a majority of the popular vote in the actual election yet still failed to be elected.
    B. The voting did not significantly alter its feelings on which candidate was preferred during the time interval between the pre-election and the actual election.
    C. The candidate winning the election consistently spent more money than the candidate who was leading in pre-election polls but failed to win.
    D. The candidates who actually won office typically relied on a strongly negative campaign strategy and attacked his or her opponent' personal credibility in the final days before the election.
    E. The elections in question were for major national or state offices and received considerable media coverage.
If I am wrong correct me :), If my post helped let me know by clicking the Thanks button ;).

Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by subhashghosh » Mon May 30, 2011 7:21 am
I think the answer is B. If we negate it, the argument is weakened.
Join the discussion

by newton9 » Mon May 30, 2011 7:24 am
P : Candidates leading in pre-election polls failed to win

C : Electoral system has deep flaws and must be discarded.

Clearly, there is a big gap in the argument. Since candidates that are leading in pre-elec. polls do not end up winning, argument concludes that the electoral system ins flawed. The correct answer will bridge this gap.

A) Strengthens the argument, but doesn't not fill the gap.
B) What if the voters altered their feelings in the mean time? This is the negation of B and argument is significantly weakened. So B looks good.
C) Not relevant.
D, E) Not relevant.
Join the discussion

by akshatmikku » Mon May 30, 2011 8:49 am
Would be interesting to see the official answer for this problem -
Here is my take ; IMO-option C
Stem-American voting system should be discarded, because pre election polls did not translate into positive results for the candidates leading the polls..
So negate the choice , if it weakens the agrument then it is ur ans .!

b) so if voting DID significantly alter its feelings towards a candidate then this proves that the system is unjust and is a support for the argument .
C) If the candidate winning the election DID not consistently spend more money than the candidate leading the pre election polls it shows that the system is just and there is no need for change ;
hence this is my ans !
Join the discussion

by sivaelectric » Mon May 30, 2011 9:02 am
OA B
If I am wrong correct me :), If my post helped let me know by clicking the Thanks button ;).

Chitra Sivasankar Arunagiri
Join the discussion

by akshatmikku » Mon May 30, 2011 1:31 pm
Would be interesting to see the official answer for this problem -
Here is my take ; IMO-option C
Stem-American voting system should be discarded, because pre election polls did not translate into positive results for the candidates leading the polls..
So negate the choice , if it weakens the agrument then it is ur ans .!

b) so if voting DID significantly alter its feelings towards a candidate then this proves that the system is unjust and is a support for the argument .
C) If the candidate winning the election DID not consistently spend more money than the candidate leading the pre election polls it shows that the system is just and there is no need for change ;
hence this is my ans !
ohh boi was I on crack !!
all right so i see the ans now negating B would mean that it was because of voting significantly altering its feeling towards a candidate --- here it shows a possible reason for the derived conclusion and weakens the argument and hence it should be the correct answer !!! aggrggh my bad !
Join the discussion

by hardikm » Mon May 30, 2011 4:33 pm
IMO B

so if voting DID significantly alter its feelings towards a candidate then this proves that the system is unjust and is a support for the argument .

This is definitely an assumption. Negate this assumption and argument will fall. If voting did not alter after the electoral then electoral has something wrong.

Option C: Out of Scope
Join the discussion