Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
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.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
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 Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart 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

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