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.

Assumption Question

Expert replies
by Ozlemg » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:53 am
Frobisher, a sixteenth-century English explorer, had soil samples from Canada's Kodlunarn Island examined for gold content. Because high gold content was reported, Elizabeth I funded two mining expeditions. Neither expedition found any gold there. Modern analysis of the island's soil indicates a very low gold content. Thus the methods used to determine the gold content of Frobisher's samples must have been inaccurate.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The gold content of the soil on Kodlunarn Island is much lower today than it was in the sixteenth century.

(B) The two mining expeditions funded by Elizabeth I did not mine the same part of Kodlunarn Island.

(C) The methods used to assess gold content of the soil samples provided by Frobisher were different from those generally used in the sixteenth century.

(D) Frobisher did not have soil samples from any other Canadian island examined for gold content.

(E) Gold was not added to the soil samples collected by Frobisher before the samples were examined.

OA E
Last edited by Ozlemg on Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by bblast » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
Tough one :


Premise 1:F found high gold content
Premise 2:LIZ found 0 gold content
Premise 3:Moderns found low gold content

Therefore->F's method was flawed.


If there was added gold in the sample F examined then this undermines the main conclusion of the arguement. Hence my pick. E

I am not very sure though. Whats the source ?
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_
Join the discussion

by champ0007 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:18 am
Premise 1 - F's samples examined for high gold content
Premise 2 - 2 mining expeditions ordered - no gold found
Premise 3 - modern analysis indicated low gold content

Conclusion - Methods by which F's samples were examined were inaccurate

We have to find an assumption that links the Premises logically to the conclusion.

A - Actually goes against the conclusion, suggesting that earlier the gold content was high and not its low and tests also indicated the same. Therefore tests could not have been inaccurate.

B - if 2 expeditions did mining at different places, there could be a possibility that thye would have found the gold if they would have did mining at the same place !!

C - -Possible answer - talks about methods, but brings in the context of "generally followed methods" - If the methods were different from generally followed methods, then those methods might have produced different results.

D - Cannot tell if having more samples would have produced accurate results - far fetched

E - Works against the conclusion. If they would have added the gold to the samples, that would have made them inaccurate. Since it is not mentioned if they did or not, we cannot tell anything.

I will go with Choice C

Whats the OA ?
Join the discussion

by Ozlemg » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:04 pm
@champ0007

If we negate E, reasoning fails.

People believe that no one added any gold to the samples, so methods used are insufficent/inaccurate because they failed to determine the gold...

If they would have added gold, so the methods used would have been correct to not to find any gold!
The more you suffer before the test, the less you will do so in the test! :)
Join the discussion

by ranjithreddy.k9 » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:08 pm
IMO E..gud question..what is the source??
Join the discussion

by bblast » Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:56 am
In power score's technical terms- this was a typical tough Defender question in which we prevent attack to the argument by actually proving falsity in the method used for final conclusion. This really wont click naturally at the first read until and unless u look the question with that perspective.
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_
Join the discussion

by champ0007 » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:15 am
Ozlemg wrote: If they would have added gold, so the methods used would have been correct to not to find any gold!
Yeah ...i think I am getting it.

I think you meant if they would have added Gold to the samples, so the methods would have been ACCURATE to have reported high gold content..

But without Gold samples being added they reported High Gold content in the samples(when actually the soil had low gold content), which makes them Inaccurate..

Thanks !!!
Join the discussion