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 question...help needed

Expert replies
by Mo2men » Sat Mar 04, 2017 3:40 am
Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:00 am
Mo2men wrote:Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.
Consider Sam's conclusion: Air pollution should decrease during a recession because fewer people will drive to work.

Felipe is arguing that air pollution will increase (or at least not decrease) because people will be driving cars that are less fuel efficient. He's certainly not arguing that Sam's conclusion is true, as D states.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Join the discussion

by Mo2men » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:11 am
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Mo2men wrote:Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.
Consider Sam's conclusion: Air pollution should decrease during a recession because fewer people will drive to work.

Felipe is arguing that air pollution will increase (or at least not decrease) because people will be driving cars that are less fuel efficient. He's certainly not arguing that Sam's conclusion is true, as D states.
Ù‹When we say I argue that you are right', does not mean that you are not right?? I mean when you argue something then you suspect it.

Thanks
Join the discussion

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Sat Mar 04, 2017 5:38 am
Mo2men wrote:
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
Mo2men wrote:Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.
Consider Sam's conclusion: Air pollution should decrease during a recession because fewer people will drive to work.

Felipe is arguing that air pollution will increase (or at least not decrease) because people will be driving cars that are less fuel efficient. He's certainly not arguing that Sam's conclusion is true, as D states.
Ù‹When we say I argue that you are right', does not mean that you are not right?? I mean when you argue something then you suspect it.

Thanks
One can argue for something or against something. If I argue that you're right, I agree with you. If I argue that you're wrong, I disagree with you. If I argue with you, we disagree about something.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Join the discussion

by GMATGuruNY » Sat Mar 04, 2017 6:34 am
Mo2men wrote:Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.
When a CR has two speakers, they will have OPPOSING CONCLUSIONS:
If the first speaker concludes that X is true, then the second speaker will conclude that X is NOT true.

D: Felipe's response argues that Sam's conclusion is true.
Since Felipe's conclusion must be the OPPOSITE of Sam's, D does not correctly describe Felipe's response.
Eliminate D.

To argue that X is true = to SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION that X is true.
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