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 replies

by nikhilgmat31 » Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:53 am
I chose B. It says unemployment rate rises even if wages are constant. It means lowering the wages will not impact umemployment rate.
Join the discussion

by bubbliiiiiiii » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:26 am
Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
Premise: Labor market mandates not applicable to teenagers because it is too costly.
Conclusion: Introduction of new sub minimum wage will help in controlling the increasing unemployment rate.

The argument assumes that employers are willing to hire teenagers and teenagers are willing to work for employers at sub minimum wage.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
This strengthens rather weakens.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
The unemployment rate increased despite keeping minimum wages constant. Thus, there should be some other reason for increasing unemployment rate. Correct.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
Timing of help hired is irrelevant.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.
Out of context!
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.
No reason why it has declined. So, could not infer anything.
Regards,

Pranay
Join the discussion

by naresh123 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:33 pm
Hi
I have different opinion. As question has asked for employers hiring for extra help and option C is not out of scope. If even Govt fix minimum wages, but employers needs teenagers only during warm weather and specific requirements. So fixing of wages will not impact on employment rate.
My understanding is for C.
Plz clarify.
Naresh k
Join the discussion

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:41 am
naresh123 wrote: Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a sub-minimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.

Hi
I have different opinion. As question has asked for employers hiring for extra help and option C is not out of scope. If even Govt fix minimum wages, but employers needs teenagers only during warm weather and specific requirements. So fixing of wages will not impact on employment rate.
My understanding is for C.
Plz clarify.
Naresh k
C tells us nothing about whom employers might hire when they need extra help. In other words, if the extra help employers hire consists primarily of men and women in their 40's, how would this undermine the notion that a lower minimum wage might boost teenage employment? (And we already know that even if employers did hire teenagers during these times, it's not enough to offset the other structural problems impacting teenage employment. We're told that teenage unemployment has been on the rise. We have to accept this premise as true.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

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