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: Resolve Paradox

Expert replies
by gauravgundal » Sun May 15, 2011 7:09 pm
Source : 800-test prep

There has been a sharp decline in revenue from television advertisements in the state, and three of the main networks are considering major cuts in their programming and news offerings. At the same time, residents of the state are watching more TV than ever, and many smaller local channels are flourishing financially.
Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent contradiction above?
A. Six months ago, the three main networks agreed to cut in half the rates charged for 15- and 30- second advertisements.
B. Many viewers in the state have started recording their favorite programs to watch at a later time, allowing them to skip over commercials.
C. The survival rate for newly-launched local channels is higher this year than it has been in previous years.
D. An increasing percentage of state residents are turning to online sources for the news.E. Many smaller channels are largely funded by public donations.
E. You are asked to explain the seeming paradox of flourishing local stations set aside huge cuts in advertising revenue.

[spoiler]OA: E[/spoiler]

I am confused on how the author track down to answer [spoiler]choice (E)[/spoiler]
E states only about the public donations to smaller channels,it doesn't mention about why there was rise in people watching T.V.
E resolved only a part of the argument.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by rk10 » Mon May 16, 2011 12:05 am
E. You are asked to explain the seeming paradox of flourishing local stations set aside huge cuts in advertising revenue

This option means that - The Argument is saying that the local stations have huge cuts in advertising Revenues as well ( which is what makes this option the correct one)
Join the discussion

by mundasingh123 » Mon May 16, 2011 3:53 am
rk10 wrote:E. You are asked to explain the seeming paradox of flourishing local stations set aside huge cuts in advertising revenue

This option means that - The Argument is saying that the local stations have huge cuts in advertising Revenues as well ( which is what makes this option the correct one)
So what if the local stations have cuts too or whatever .
E doesnt explain paradox
On 1 hand you have the drop in revenues from advertising and the cuts in programming by the 3 main companies . On the other hand you have increase in number television usage .
E doesnt reconcile the 2 contradictory positions
BTW never heard of 800 test prep
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
Join the discussion

by Carcass » Mon May 16, 2011 6:52 am
for me is clear D.
Join the discussion

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Mon May 16, 2011 7:52 am
gauravgundal wrote:Source : 800-test prep

There has been a sharp decline in revenue from television advertisements in the state, and three of the main networks are considering major cuts in their programming and news offerings. At the same time, residents of the state are watching more TV than ever, and many smaller local channels are flourishing financially.

Which of the following, if true, best explains the apparent contradiction above?

A. Six months ago, the three main networks agreed to cut in half the rates charged for 15- and 30- second advertisements.

B. Many viewers in the state have started recording their favorite programs to watch at a later time, allowing them to skip over commercials.

C. The survival rate for newly-launched local channels is higher this year than it has been in previous years.

D. An increasing percentage of state residents are turning to online sources for the news.

E. Many smaller channels are largely funded by public donations.


[spoiler]OA: E[/spoiler]

I am confused on how the author track down to answer [spoiler]choice (E)[/spoiler]
E states only about the public donations to smaller channels,it doesn't mention about why there was rise in people watching T.V.
E resolved only a part of the argument.
Hi,

I'm not sure who "800 Test Prep" is, but this is a poorly constructed question.

As noted by a couple of other posters, E explains only part of the issue - and only explains that part partially. E may explain why those stations aren't going under, but just because they get public funding that doesn't logically lead to them flourishing and certainly doesn't explain why major stations are losing money even though more people are watching TV.

A proper answer should explain all of the issues, not just sort of explain 1/4 of them.
Image

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
Join the discussion