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.

Bats Laboratory

Expert replies
by perfectstranger » Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:16 am
A certain laboratory is studying the incidence of fatal liver damage in rats.-Sixty-five percent of all rats whose environments exposed them to low levels of the toxin sulfur dioxide died of liver disorder. Ninety percent of all rats who died of liver disorder, however, were not exposed to any environmental toxins.

Which of the following would provide a feasible explanation for the statistics above?

A Environmental and nonenvironmental causes of liver disease in rats are mutually exclusive.
B There is only one cause of fatal liver disease in rats.
C Environmental toxins are not particularly dangerous to the livers of rats.
D Only a small portion of the entire group of rats studied was exposed to environmental sulfur dioxide.
E Most rats will not suffer from exposure to low levels of sulfur dioxide.

Please explain the answer in a detailed way.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by raunekk » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:26 am
IMO:D

LET Total number died due to liver damage =1000

Total no. of rats whose environments
exposed themselves to low levels of
the toxin sulfur dioxide (& under
observation) =100

65% of them died = 65

Therefore,rats who died of liver disorder,
who were not exposed to any environmental = 900 (1000-100)
toxins
(i.e 90%)

Thus % of rats exposed to sulfur dioxide = 10% ( 100 of 1000)


Which obviously is a small portion (of 1000 )
under observation for toxin.

D says exactly this.



Thx.
Join the discussion

by NSNguyen » Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:49 am
10% total rats died of disorder are exposed to low level of sulfur dioxide
90% rats died of liver disorder are not exposed to ....
:D
OA: D
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Join the discussion

by DiverJ » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:55 pm
I came across this question as well and the responses here don't seem logical to me. Why are you assuming that the total # of rats that died is 1000 and that the sample of exposed rats was 100. If you flip those numbers around then you'd get the opposite answer.

What if 1000 rats were exposed and 10 were not exposed. Then 650 died of liver disorder after exposure and 9 died of liver disorder without exposure.

The two stats come from different sample groups. 1) Rats exposed 2) Rats not exposed.

I don't see how you'd be able to tell that the population sizes were different.

Does anyone else have an answer to this one?
Join the discussion

by bmlaud » Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:30 am
Let the total no. of rats died of liver damage be 1000
then no. of rats died without any effect of env. toxins = 90% of 1000 = 900
No. of rats died due to sulfur di oxide = 100 .... (1000-900)

No. of rats exposed to sulfur di oxide = 100/0.65 = 154

154 <<< 900 ( which is the no. of rat deaths for other reasons), the sample size will atleast be 900.

so D
Join the discussion

by graem83d » Sun May 15, 2016 2:39 am
I would go with option D as the correct option
Join the discussion