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.

City councilman

Expert replies
by raunekk » Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:52 pm
Bus company president:A city councilman has stated his objection to the claim that the city buses are dangerous.This is clearly untrue.None of hte new buses in use has ever been crashed or even had a serious malfunction.

city councilman: The problem with the new buses is not that they malfunction, but
that they are so flamboyantly painted that other drivers on the road are distracted and this may cause accidents.
The councilman responds to the bus company president by doing which of the
following?
(A) Characterizing the bus company president’s assertion as stemming from
subjective interest rather than from objective evaluation of the facts
(B) Drawing attention to the fact that the bus company president’s interpretation of
the word “dangerous” is too narrow
(C) Invoking evidence that the bus company president has explicitly dismissed as
irrelevant the point at issue
(D) Citing statistical evidence that refutes the bus company president’s claim
(E) Casting doubt on the extent of the bus company president’s knowledge of the number of recent traffic accidents
Last edited by raunekk on Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by reachac » Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:01 pm
IMO A

But not 2 sure....source?
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:48 pm
@reachac.


it's from a bunch of CR files downloaded from net...(but d source seems genuine)

OA is B.. i will post the OA explanation given... but not quite convince with it..

OA explanation...

The bus company's president counters the claim that the bus company's buses are dangerous by stating that their buses have not been involved in an accident or malfunctioned .The councilman in turn states facts that show how the buses can indeed be dangerous,but not in the way the president means.

:roll:
Join the discussion

by kiranlegend » Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:54 am
raunekk wrote:@reachac.


it's from a bunch of CR files downloaded from net...(but d source seems genuine)

OA is B.. i will post the OA explanation given... but not quite convince with it..

OA explanation...

The bus company's president counters the claim that the bus company's buses are dangerous by stating that their buses have not been involved in an accident or malfunctioned .The councilman in turn states facts that show how the buses can indeed be dangerous,but not in the way the president means.

:roll:
IMO B

my explanation:
"Drawing attention to the fact that the bus company president’s interpretation of
the word “dangerous” is too narrow
"

Bus company missed about the flashy color of the buses. So, it is not complete and hence, narrow:P

what do you say?
Join the discussion

by reachac » Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:37 am
@raunekk
Seems u ve edited the post :( ... think u got the rite answer so I wont attempt it here again.

cheers!!
Join the discussion

by kiranlegend » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:02 am
Was OA edited?? :roll:

what is the correct OA then?
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:04 am
@ reachac...

i cut-copy-pasted from the pdf file and thr was a problem with the font type which i realised later...
my mistake..

i re-read it after your post

IMO A

But not 2 sure....source?
Coz its just rare to get such an answer from someone like you..

sorry if u found that offensive in anyway,,,

But i am still confused with answer B..

neways..

Anyone????
Join the discussion

by reachac » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:12 am
Hahaha did I just read offensive :shock: :shock: lol ...no not at all :oops: deres just nothin in it
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:20 am
well..its good if you didnt..:)


@raunekk
Seems u ve edited the post ... think u got the rite answer so I wont attempt it here again.

cheers!!

had an "offended" tone....afterall ,u neva know :wink:

neways after reading d edited :wink: version...

wud u have choosen B... ??? and if yes y??
Join the discussion

by reachac » Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:32 am
Bus company president:A city councilman has stated his objection to the claim that the city buses are dangerous.This is clearly untrue.None of hte new buses in use has ever been crashed or even had a serious malfunction.
Conclusion of the Prez "This is clearly untrue" ie buses arent dangerous
Evidence offered by prez: ".None of hte new buses in use has ever been crashed or even had a serious "......i.e the prez thinks that he has quenched the only 2 points that could have proved the buses 2 b danegerous.
city councilman: The problem with the new buses is not that they malfunction, but
that they are so flamboyantly painted that other drivers on the road are distracted and this may cause accidents.
Now to counter the prez, this councilman draws out a completely new perspective. Hence he is broadening the criterion to adjudge the buses as being danegerous. Obvioulsy the prez didnt knew this point or else he would have atleast mentioned it in his arg.

Hence B
Join the discussion

by khanshainur » Wed May 11, 2016 2:51 am
It seems to me that the right answer is A
Join the discussion