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- Paradox - Hard to digest

Expert replies
by gauravgundal » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:56 pm
Source: Princeton Review book

Passenger boardings on trains almost doubled between 1985 and 1995, yet the actual number of trips made by passengers increased by only 38 percent over the same period. The reason for this discrepancy is that at least two boardings are counted when a passenger must take more than one train trip to get to the final destination of his or her trip.

Which of the following, if true, best helps explain why the increase in boardings exceeded the increase in the number of train passengers between 1985 and 1995?

A. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of train stations increased dramatically.
B. Between 1985 and 1995, the number of train lines decreased significantly.
C. Between 1985 and 1995, the proportion of train trips requiring passengers to change trains en route to their final
destinations increased significantly.
D. The proportion of business travelers using trains increased significantly between 1985 and 1995 relative to the
proportion of pleasure travelers.
E. The average seating capacity of passenger trains increased significantly between 1985 and 1995.


[spoiler]IMO: OA: C[/spoiler]

Using POE, I happen to get the correct answer,but I am finding this argument little bi hard to understand and justify myself to agree with answer choice C.

I don't understand that if the proportion of train trips requiring passengers to change trains increased significantly

how does the above statement help in explaining the paradox between the boarding of train and number of trip.

Can anyone help me to understand the reason behind the correct answer ? Any numerical explanation is welcomed .
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by mundasingh123 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:07 am
Using POE, I happen to get the correct answer,but I am finding this argument little bi hard to understand and justify myself to agree with answer choice C.

I don't understand that if the proportion of train trips requiring passengers to change trains increased significantly

how does the above statement help in explaining the paradox between the boarding of train and number of trip.

Can anyone help me to understand the reason behind the correct answer ? Any numerical explanation is welcomed .

Hi
For example I need to go to Station A from Station B .There is only a direct line from B to C On the way between B and C there is a station D which is connected to A.
So I buy a ticket from B to C ie 1 boarding
On the way I get down at D and buy a ticket from D to A ie 1 Boarding
So that means 2 boardings ( because there are 2 trips ,B to D,D to A) but there is only 1 passenger.
This is what Choice C says the lines that require a Change of Train have Increased .
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:02 am
the key to the problem is in this line:
passage wrote:at least two boardings are counted when a passenger must take more than one train trip to get to the final destination of his or her trip.
this quote uses unnecessarily circuitous language, but its point is fairly clear: if a trip has multiple parts, then one "boarding" is counted for each part of the trip -- even though all of those boardings are made by the same passenger.

this is the only way described in the passage for the number of boardings to exceed the number of passengers -- i.e., if passengers are taking trips that involve multiple boardings. that would be answer choice (c).

you didn't indicate which other answer you wanted to pick; which other answer(s) tempted you?
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion

by GMATMadeEasy » Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:19 am
@Ron: how about option E ?
Join the discussion

by lunarpower » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:24 pm
GMATMadeEasy wrote:@Ron: how about option E ?
the question is about why one rate of increase was faster than another rate of increase.

choice (e) -- an increased capacity for the trains themselves -- might explain why there were increases in the first place, but it has nothing to do with why one rate of increase would be larger than the other.

also note that the information in the passage itself strongly points to multi-part journeys as the reason -- see the reasoning in my post above.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Join the discussion