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
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pmFollowed by: 23 members
by BTGmoderatorDC » Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:55 am

Timer

00:00

Answers

A

B

C

D

E

Stats

Difficulty—

Between 1971 and 1975, the government office that monitors drug companies issued an average of 60 citations a year for serious violations of drug-promotion laws. Between 1976 and 1980, the annual average for issuance of such citations was only 5. This decrease indicates that the government office was, on average, considerably more lax in enforcing drug-promotion laws between 1976 and 1980 than it was between 1971 and 1975.

The argument assumes which one of the following?

(A) The decrease in the number of citations was not caused by a decrease in drug companies violations of drug-promotion laws.

(B) A change in enforcement of drug-promotion laws did not apply to minor violations.

(C) The enforcement of drug-promotion laws changed in response to political pressure.

(D) The government office should not issue more than an average of 5 citations a year to drug companies for serious violations of drug-promotion laws.

(E) Before 1971 the government office issued more than 60 citations a year to drug companies for serious violations of drug-promotion laws.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pmFollowed by: 5 members

by deloitte247 » Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:05 am
Option A: This statement explains why the negligence of the government agency saddled with such regulations accounted for the sharp drop in the average citations released and not that the compliance of the companies involved. This is correct.

Option B: this remains a weak statement because the agency responsible has been sloppy in the response to both the major and minor violations. This is wrong

Option C: This statement is rather speculative because it wasn't part of the writer's suggestions nor could inference be drawn. This is wrong.

Option D: Another speculative statement. The 5 mentioned herein is from the drop from 60 citations issued. N.B. The decrease was not directly as a result of a required or stated numbers of issuance but of a direct consequence of the negligent attire of the officials saddled with such responsibilities.this is wrong.
Option E: This is a weak argument because the writer never suggested it happened before '1971' rather, it stated between 1971-1975. This is wrong.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1