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.

Bold Faced

Expert replies
by himu » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:34 pm
In countries where healthcare is universal and provided free of charge by the government, visits per capita to the doctor

are twice as frequent as they are in countries where healthcare is paid at least partly out-of-pocket by the consumer.

Presently, governments do not have a reliable way of determining whether the symptoms for which these patients were treated

for would have otherwise subsided without medical attention. However, this information does not warrant the conclusion by

some universal healthcare critics that in the countries with a higher frequency of doctor visits, about half of them are

unnecessary. Alternatively, in those countries where healthcare is not free, consumers often forego visits to the doctor

except in cases of severe symptoms.

In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

The first is a premise that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that premise.

The first is a premise, of which the implications are in dispute in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order

to argue against deriving certain implications from that premise.

The first is a finding, the accuracy of which is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish

the accuracy of the finding.

The first is a premise that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

The first is a conclusion that rests upon further evidence within the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
-------
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by anuprajan5 » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:32 pm
Himu,

Pls bold the portions.

REgards
Anup
Regards
Anup

The only lines that matter - are the ones you make!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk4sZcG ... ata_player
Join the discussion

by himu » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:38 pm
himu wrote:In countries where healthcare is universal and provided free of charge by the government, visits per capita to the doctor

are twice as frequent as they are in countries where healthcare is paid at least partly out-of-pocket by the consumer.

Presently, governments do not have a reliable way of determining whether the symptoms for which these patients were treated

for would have otherwise subsided without medical attention. However, this information does not warrant the conclusion by

some universal healthcare critics that in the countries with a higher frequency of doctor visits, about half of them are

unnecessary. Alternatively, in those countries where healthcare is not free, consumers often forego visits to the doctor

except in cases of severe symptoms.

In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

The first is a premise that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that premise.

The first is a premise, of which the implications are in dispute in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order

to argue against deriving certain implications from that premise.

The first is a finding, the accuracy of which is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish

the accuracy of the finding.

The first is a premise that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

The first is a conclusion that rests upon further evidence within the argument; the second supports that conclusion.
-------
Join the discussion

by himu » Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:39 pm
sry for that Anup, done !
Join the discussion

by kunalkulkarni » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:12 pm
IMO it should be C
Join the discussion

by new_excursion » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:42 pm
IMO B. The implications of the claim are being discussed/evaluated.
Join the discussion

by himu » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:18 am
Correct Answer: B

The frequency of visits to the doctor is twice as high in those countries with free healthcare as it is in those without free healthcare. Although there is no reliable indicator of how severe these patients' symptoms were, this does not necessarily mean that half of the visits were unnecessary. It could simply be that some consumers, although sick, would rather try to get better on their own than spend money out-of-pocket to see a doctor. The role of the first boldfaced portion is a premise that describes the frequency of doctors visits between countries that do and do not pay 100% of healthcare costs. The implication of this premise suggested in the argument infers that since there is no reliable way to determine whether the patients would have recovered on their own, over half of the visits in those countries that have free healthcare are unnecessary. The second boldface portion indicates why deriving such an implication is not warranted. Therefore, answer choice B is the correct answer. A- While the first is a premise, the argument does not dispute it in any way. Additionally, the second portion is not offered as a conclusion, but as reasoning that the conclusion in the previous sentence may not necessarily be justified. As a result, answer choice A is incorrect. C- The accuracy of the first boldfaced portion is never brought into question. Therefore answer choice C is incorrect. D- The argument does not accept the main conclusion, but rather seeks to undermine its validity. Additionally, the second boldfaced portion does not play the role of a conclusion. Consequently, answer choice D is incorrect. E- The first boldfaced portion is a premise and does not play the role of a conclusion. Therefore answer choice E is incorrect.
Join the discussion