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.

CR assumption type

Expert replies
by neha shekhawat » Tue Feb 14, 2017 10:48 am
The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

I got confused between A and C.Still not able to find out that why is option A not correct answer?
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by AjiteshArun » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:19 am
neha shekhawat wrote:I got confused between A and C.Still not able to find out that why is option A not correct answer?
The weakness in the argument is that it relies on a drop in the number of Borodian TV assemblers to say that the number of TVs imported must go up. But even if the number of Borodian TV assemblers goes down, those assemblers could produce more TVs if they become (for example) more efficient. Therefore, to remove this possibility and to say that the number of imported TVs will go up, we must assume that (the smaller number of) Borodian TV assemblers are not going to get faster at making TVs. That's for the third option.

For the first option: the argument does not need to assume that the number of assemblers in Vernland will go up as there are many ways that imports into Borodia could go up. For example, even if the total number of assemblers (even the total number of TVs made) in Vernland goes down, the number of TVs sent to Borodia could still go up.
Join the discussion

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:28 am
I explain this CR here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-13-cr-113 ... 41622.html
neha shekhawat wrote:why is option A not correct answer?
When the correct answer choice is negated, the conclusion will be invalidated.
A, negated:
The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by less than the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
If Borodia loses 100 assemblers, while Vernland gains 99 assemblers, it is still entirely possible that the lack of assemblers in Borodia will result in an increase in imports from Vernland.
Since the negation of A does not invalidate the conclusion, eliminate A.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Join the discussion