BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

complete the passage

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:03 am
Thanked: 2 times

by welett » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:17 am
I think its E

if elderly are supplemented by their children for a standard living, the %20 increase will serve to decrease the ammount children spend on their elderly, not the amount elderly can spend.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:26 amFollowed by: 27 members
Location: India
Thanked: 51 times
GMAT Score:670

by arora007 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:07 am
IMO E , if anything is there that could possibly come close...was D.

The reasoning is simple... the supplements from the children came down after the pensions increased.
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 amFollowed by: 7 members
Thanked: 135 times

by selango » Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:46 am
IMO E

After the 20% increase,elderly have reached the level of comfortable living or close to it,children must have stopped or reduced the supplement.
--Anand--
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pmFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 29 times
GMAT Score:710

by debmalya_dutta » Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:37 pm
Think the answer is B...

"E" doesnt make sense because if children supplemented the income , they should have been better off (even if the child contributed a meagre amount)

"D" doesnt make sense because it has no relation to the argument . So what if the number of elderly Runagians (dont even know if these elderly are above 65) reached a max. The government decided to increase by 20% the amount that they paid to each of the "above 65" elderly person .
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 amFollowed by: 7 members
Thanked: 135 times

by selango » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:01 pm
Option B is incorrect.

Its states bank takes 3 week to process the cheques.Even it delay,elderly are getting money after some time.This ll make them to live comfortable.

However the argument says still elderly are not better after the increase.Option B weakens this argument.

Option E is correct.

Children provides extra money,which makes elderly to live comfortable living.After the increase children stopped or reduce the money which make the elderly to live same life.

Before increase
Pension=500
Children=400

After increase
Pension=800
Children=100[or no money]

Since the children supplement is considerable factor in elderly comfortable living,it logically completes the argument.
--Anand--
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:56 am
Thanked: 4 times

by abhigang » Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:40 pm
IMO D.
For people who were living below poverty line, 20% increase will only have added miniscule relief.

I was thinking deeply about E too. Because the meaning of "comfortable living" is so dicy and relative, I eliminated it ultimately.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:56 am
Thanked: 4 times

by abhigang » Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:44 pm
I will go with E... finally
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply