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.

1000 CRs - Comedians

Expert replies
by kajcha » Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:45 am
All of the best comedians have had unhappy childhoods. Yet, many people who have had happy childhoods are good comedians, and some good comedians who have had miserably unhappy childhoods are happy adults.
If the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following CANNOT be true?
(A) The proportion of good comedians who had unhappy childhoods is greater than the proportion of the best comedians who did.
(B) Some good comedians have had unhappy childhoods and are unhappy adults.
(C) Most of the best comedians are happy adults.
(D) More good comedians have had unhappy childhoods than have had happy childhoods.
(E) The proportion of comedians who are happy adults is higher than the proportion who are unhappy adults.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by mschling52 » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:11 am
I think it's A.

The passage states that ALL of the best comedians had unhappy childhoods and that SOME good comedians had happy childhoods.

Since the proportion of the best comedians who had unhappy childhoods is 100%, it is not possible for the proportion of good comedians with unhappy childhoods to be any higher.
Join the discussion

by kajcha » Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:30 am
Yeah, that's the one OA is A
Join the discussion

by sibbineni » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:22 am
IMO (A)

premise 1: All of the best comedians have had unhappy childhoods.
100% of the best comedians have unhappy childhoods.
Premise 2: Some of the good comedians have had miserably unhappy childhoods
Not 100% of the good comedians have unhappy childhoods

so the proportion of best comedians who had unhappy child hoods is > than good comedians
Join the discussion

by simplyjat » Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:54 pm
Are these type questions asked in GMAT? I am having a belief that these questions are out of scope for GMAT...
simplyjat
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:52 am
sibbineni wrote:IMO (A)

premise 1: All of the best comedians have had unhappy childhoods.
100% of the best comedians have unhappy childhoods.
Premise 2: Some of the good comedians have had miserably unhappy childhoods
Not 100% of the good comedians have unhappy childhoods

so the proportion of best comedians who had unhappy child hoods is > than good comedians
(A) is correct, but one small mistake in this reasoning.

"Some" literally means "at least one" and has no upper limit.

So, "some of the good comedians have had miserably unhappy childhoods" means that "at least one good comedian has had a miserably unhappy childhood". It's actually possible that ALL of them were miserably unhappy.

So, as Mschling pointed out, since 100% of the best were unhappy, it's impossible that a GREATER proportion of the good were unhappy, since there's no proportion greater than 100%.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Join the discussion

by khanshainur » Tue May 10, 2016 1:44 am
i totally agree with you, guys. It's A
Join the discussion