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 Qn

Expert replies
by crimson2283 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:31 am
Antoine: The alarming fact is that among children aged 19 years and younger, the number taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the last four years. That is greater than the increase in the number of adults taking antipsychotic medicines during the same period.

Lucy: But the use of antipsychotic drugs by adults is considered normal at the current rate of 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs. In contrast, the number of children on antipsychotic medication last year was 6.6 per 1,000 children.

Lucy's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

The current level of antipsychotic drug use in children is abnormally high.
The fact that the number of children taking antipsychotic medicines increased 73 percent over the last four years is not an indication that the current level of use is abnormally high.
If only 6.6 out of every 1,000 children are taking an antipsychotic medication, the increase in the use of such medicines cannot be the percentage Antoine cites.
It is unlikely that the increase in the use of antipsychotic medicines by children will continue at the same rate.
If the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs is given as a certain number, the actual rate of such drug use is even higher.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by manpsingh87 » Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:14 am
crimson2283 wrote:Antoine: The alarming fact is that among children aged 19 years and younger, the number taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the last four years. That is greater than the increase in the number of adults taking antipsychotic medicines during the same period.

Lucy: But the use of antipsychotic drugs by adults is considered normal at the current rate of 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs. In contrast, the number of children on antipsychotic medication last year was 6.6 per 1,000 children.

Lucy's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

The current level of antipsychotic drug use in children is abnormally high.
The fact that the number of children taking antipsychotic medicines increased 73 percent over the last four years is not an indication that the current level of use is abnormally high.
If only 6.6 out of every 1,000 children are taking an antipsychotic medication, the increase in the use of such medicines cannot be the percentage Antoine cites.
It is unlikely that the increase in the use of antipsychotic medicines by children will continue at the same rate.
If the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs is given as a certain number, the actual rate of such drug use is even higher.

IMO B.. !!!
O Excellence... my search for you is on... you can be far.. but not beyond my reach!
Join the discussion

by manojks » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:18 am
"B"
The fact that the number of children taking antipsychotic medicines increased 73 percent over the last four years is not an indication that the current level of use is abnormally high.
Join the discussion

by manpsingh87 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:18 am
please post the official answer along with the source of the question.!!!!
O Excellence... my search for you is on... you can be far.. but not beyond my reach!
Join the discussion

by aspirant2011 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:38 am
i would also go with B option................wats the OA?

A,D & E can be straightforwadly rejected.

Out of B & C, B is more near to be the correct one.
Join the discussion

by tetura84 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:15 am
crimson2283 wrote:Antoine: The alarming fact is that among children aged 19 years and younger, the number taking antipsychotic medicines soared 73 percent in the last four years. That is greater than the increase in the number of adults taking antipsychotic medicines during the same period.

Lucy: But the use of antipsychotic drugs by adults is considered normal at the current rate of 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs. In contrast, the number of children on antipsychotic medication last year was 6.6 per 1,000 children.

Lucy's argument is structured to lead to which of the following as a conclusion?

The current level of antipsychotic drug use in children is abnormally high.
The fact that the number of children taking antipsychotic medicines increased 73 percent over the last four years is not an indication that the current level of use is abnormally high.
If only 6.6 out of every 1,000 children are taking an antipsychotic medication, the increase in the use of such medicines cannot be the percentage Antoine cites.
It is unlikely that the increase in the use of antipsychotic medicines by children will continue at the same rate.
If the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs is given as a certain number, the actual rate of such drug use is even higher.
Antonie: In last 4 years use of X increased 73% among children. This increased no. is greate than increase in no. of adults using X in the same time period.
Lucy: Now, 11 adults per 1000 use X. Last year 6.6 children per 1000 used X.

A. Lucy does not say now usage level among children is high
C. Increase can be 73% in last 4 years. Lucy only says last year it was 6.6 Now 73% increase means, 7.3 increased per 1000. So, if 4 years back the rate was 2, now it can be 9.3. And also, 6.6 can very well stand in between 9.3 and 2.
D. No where this statement is mentioned.
E. Statement is not valid.

Now B says, This increase in 73% is not an indication that the usage is high.
Lucy said, 11 % is considered as normal. And if last year the rate was 6.6 among children, the rate cannot be more than 11% even with 73% increase. So, this rate is definitely normal.
78 clicks can change my life !
Join the discussion

by bubbliiiiiiii » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:23 am
crimson2283 wrote:
The current level of antipsychotic drug use in children is abnormally high.
This is what Antoine intends to say but not Lucy's conclusion.
The fact that the number of children taking antipsychotic medicines increased 73 percent over the last four years is not an indication that the current level of use is abnormally high.
Lucy tries to say that the figure, based on which Antoine is arguing, that though the f% figure is higher among adults, it is indeed common. Thus, she concludes the consumption rate among teenagers are not so high as well.
If only 6.6 out of every 1,000 children are taking an antipsychotic medication, the increase in the use of such medicines cannot be the percentage Antoine cites.
Here, Lucy precisely tries to contradict Antoines estimates which is not the case.It is unlikely that the increase in the use of antipsychotic medicines by children will continue at the same rate.
Out of context.If the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs is given as a certain number, the actual rate of such drug use is even higher.
This option tries to question the facts given by Antoine. Thus, not apprpriate.
Regards,

Pranay
Join the discussion

by Target2009 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:21 pm
+1 B
Regards
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student
Join the discussion