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_Weaken

Expert replies
by Soumita » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:10 pm
The Dean claimed that, as a result of continued cutbacks in the budget for pure science research, fewer students are choosing a career in physics, and therefore the number of postgraduate students studying physics is likely to decline.

Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the Dean’s conclusion?

A. The number of students majoring in physics at the undergraduate level has been increasing steadily over the years, a trend that is expected to continue.
B. The number of students studying chemistry declined even before cutbacks in research funding were noted.
C. Most postgraduate students of physics move to careers in computer science and engineering.
D. The Dean’s own university has recently increased the number of staff members teaching physics.
E. The budget cutbacks are less severe for the pure sciences than for applied sciences.


OA C

Please explain how OA given is correct. Please explain me in details. OA is strenghthening instead of weakening.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Tommy Wallach » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:18 pm
Hey Soumita,

Let's start with a brief outline of the argument:

Conclusion: # of Post-grads in physics is gonna go down
Proof: Fewer students are choosing a career in physics

The assumption here is fairly straightforward. A lot of people study fields even if they don't want/expect a career in that field (the liberal arts are the best example of this, but it applies to science, too). This argument assumes that the # of physics jobs correlates with the # of physics post-grads.

A) The argument links jobs to folks doing post-grads, not jobs to undergrads or undergrads to post-grads.

B) This is irrelevant. Knowing about chemistry tells us nothing about physics.

C) CORRECT. This answer breaks the correlation between # of postgrads in physics and # of career physicists. If most postgrads in physics don't go into physics anyway, then it follows that a change in one statistic (# of career physicists) won't affect the other statistic (# of physics postgrads).

D) This is tempting, but an increase in professors does not necessitate an increase in postgrads. They could simply be improving the teacher to student ratio.

E) The severity of the cutbacks isn't important. We already know there have been cutbacks. The question is whether the assumed result of those cutbacks (fewer career physicists) necessarily affects the # of physics postgrads.

Hope that helps!

-t
Tommy Wallach, Company Expert
ManhattanGMAT

If you found this posting mega-helpful, feel free to thank and/or follow me!
Join the discussion