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
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.

Argument: Real-estate Magazine.

Expert replies
by havok » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:03 am
The following appeared in The Homebuilder magazine, a local publication with a focus on construction and sale of real-estate properties:

"According to the most recent survey of our readers, nearly 70% of the respondents indicated that they are planning to build or purchase a new home over the next 2 years. These results indicate that the growth in the construction industry is likely to accelerate in the near future. Therefore, this industry continues to offer lucrative opportunities for investment."

The claim that the real-estate industry offers lucrative opportunities for investment is not effectively supported by the evidence presented. The survey's respondents are biased, the lack of historical data weakens the claim, and the scope is too encompassing.

Firstly, The Homebuilding magazine is focused on the "construction and sale of real-estate properties". It is likely that its readership is made up of mainly those who are already predisposed to the real-estate industry. The sample provided is not an accurate measure of people in general, and consequently should not be asserted as such.

Secondly, it is claimed that the results indicate that there will be growth in the near future. There is no historical data to support this statement. It is possible that more than 70% of respondents to a survey the previous year indicated that they were shopping in the real estate market - in this case, the inference would be the opposite of what is stated. The author should not assume that the reader will accept the current claim without supporting data.

Lastly, the scope of the claim refers to the real-estate industry as a whole. It is important to note that this magazine is a local publication; the sample size is naturally biased based on the location the magazine is printed. The results of the survey are therefore not indicative of the industry as a whole. To make the argument stronger, the author should have decreased the scope of its statements to that of the local level. The author also should have provided more relevant data. However, the author did not provide these details, and therefore the claims made in this magazine are flawed.
Join the discussion
Source: — GMAT Essays (AWA) |

• Page 1 of 1