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 expert help required for tense interpretations

Expert replies
by mundasingh123 » Sat May 14, 2011 12:18 pm
This is a CR as well as an SC question LOL
In order to compensate for rising costs within the state prison system, one state legislator recommends increasing the amount of money allotted to state prisons by ten percent per prisoner. The legislator claims that this will increase the overall budget for the prison system by ten percent in the coming years.

On which of the following assumptions does the legislator's argument depend?

(A)

The rising costs within the state prison system are not the result of an increase in the number of prisoners in the system.
(B)

The total number of prisoners in the state prison system will not decrease in upcoming years.
(C)

The number of people who are sentenced to non-prison sentences, like community service, rather than prison sentences, will not increase.
(D)

The total number of prisons in use in the state will not decrease from its current level.
(E)

The average number of prisoners in each prison will not decrease in the coming years.

How do we interpret A ?
The rising costs within the state prison system are not the result of an increase in the number of prisoners in the system.
The number of prisoners has not increased so far or the number of prisoners are not increasing in general

I thought the present tense are is used to indicate that the action generally is true . The action was true yesterday ,is true today and will be true tomorrow too.
what does the
In order to compensate for rising costs within the state prison system
in the stimulus signify . the costs were rising till today or have been rising and will be rising tomorrow as well


Can we interpret A in another way
The costs continue to remain the same inspite of the increase in passengers .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by HSPA » Sat May 14, 2011 11:20 pm
hi Munda,

Are you sure that A is the answer for this CR??

Why is C wrong??
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.
Join the discussion

by sourabh33 » Sat May 14, 2011 11:30 pm
IMO B
Join the discussion

by mundasingh123 » Sat May 14, 2011 11:41 pm
well i dont want coloured responses just yet . sorry to delay the oa . since no experts have have replied yet , i might as well gauge the unbiased community response to this question . I will reveal the OA later today . What i seek is an explanation .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Join the discussion

by mundasingh123 » Sat May 14, 2011 11:45 pm
Source is kNEWTON . I might as well take the initiative of revealing the source to make it more convenient for wary community members like me
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Join the discussion

by sourabh33 » Sun May 15, 2011 12:04 am
The Explanation is as below

Conclusion : Increasing money allotted to state prisons by 10%/prisoner will increase the overall budget for the prison system in the coming years.

Suppose there are 5000 prisoners in state prisons and the current state prison's budget is 50000
Therefore, current budget per prisoner = 50000/5000 = 10
Now by increasing 10% per prisoner leads to total budget of 11x5000 = 55000

For conclusion to be true the overall number of prisoners should not decrease (consider this case where no of prisoner decreases to 4000. Here, even if the budget per prisoner is increased by 10% the overall budget for state prisons increases instead of getting reduced).


Option A - Rising cost of state prison has no direct relevance to the conclusion as the conclusion talks about increase in overall budget through a 10% increase in per prisoner budget

Option B - Negate this and conclusion gets invalid (explained in detailed above)

Option C - even if this increases it has no relevance on the conclusion as no of prisoners are not decreasing

Option D - even if the total no of prison decreases it is possible that no of prisoners may not decrease (500 prisoners in 10 jails = 1000 x 5 jails)

Option E - even if the average decreases it is possible that no of of prisoners may not decrease (initially 5000/10 = 500 prisoners per jail...in few years, considering new prisons are built -> 5000/20 = 250)
Join the discussion

by mundasingh123 » Sun May 15, 2011 12:07 am
hi saurabh thanks for the explanation to the right answer but i am looking for the explanation to the wrong answer . My question is different . I am having interpretation issues regarding how the answer choice A and the stimulus in some places has been worded
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Join the discussion