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.

As media exposure increased for the Jersey Shore

Expert replies
by BTGmoderatorDC » Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:42 am
As media exposure increased for the Jersey Shore in the last 5 years, the annual number of people visiting the shore increased each year. Over the same period, however, the number of people getting sun burns from suntanning decreased, even though there was no reduction in the number of people suntanning on the beach each day. Further, the number of sunny days and the UV (Ultraviolet) Index actually increased.

Which of the following, if true for the Jersey Shore over the last 5 years, most helps to explain the decrease?

(A) Sunburns are most likely to happen when beach go-ers suntan for consecutive sunny days at the beach.
(B) Sunburns severely damage at least several people's skin each year at the Jersey Shore (hyperpigmentation, discoloration and burned patches of skin)
(C) People going to the Jersey Shore used suntan lotion with increasing levels of UV protection and monitored UV levels to help determine what times during the day were most suitable for being in the sun.
(D) The average length of stay for people visiting the Jersey Shore increased slightly.
(E) Construction of new shops, malls, and casinos by the Jersey shore helped attract visitors to go indoors rather than stay outdoors.

Why E isn't the best Option?

OA C
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by elias.latour.apex » Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:50 am
You have asked why (E) isn't the best option. In the argument we find that "... there was no reduction in the number of people suntanning on the beach each day." So although (E) suggests that the percentage of people outdoors reduced, that does not mean that the absolute number of people did so.

Many GMAT questions work by getting people confused about the difference between the percentage and the absolute number. The absolute number can increase while the percentage goes down. Similarly, the percentage can stay constant while the absolute number decreases.

Here's another problem that tends to exploit this oversight in people:

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?

(A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average, last year than such people did ten years ago.
(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago.
(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years.
(D) The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

The argument states that the percentage has decreased by 3 percent. The argument then assumes that the total number of retirees must have gone down and concludes that Florida businesses that cater to retirees will be adversely affected.

Answer choice (C) is the one that attacks the assumption that a percentage decrease must have led to a decrease in the total number of retirees moving to Florida.
Elias Latour
Verbal Specialist @ ApexGMAT
blog.apexgmat.com
+1 (646) 736-7622
Join the discussion