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.

Critical Reasoning answer choice like a DS Quant Q.

Expert replies
by sachindia » Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:48 pm
Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than
has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that
news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an
important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalist's conclusion assumes that the
A. oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
B. otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
C. oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
D. government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
E. oil company's efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in
previous projects to clean up oil spills


OA is A

but is C the wrong ans because of the following reason? Just want to be sure about my reasoning. It seems like a DS answer choice.

negate C

profits has been motive for not always ( 0 to 99 times); that is 0 to 99 times profit has been motive. so conclusion is true. 1 time no profit motive. concllusion false. both false and true u have. so this cant be the answer
Regards,
Sach
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by vk_vinayak » Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:13 pm
sachindia wrote:Oil company representative: We spent more money on cleaning the otters affected by our recent oil spill than
has been spent on any previous marine mammal rescue project. This shows our concern for the environment.
Environmentalist: You have no such concern. Your real concern is evident in your admission to the press that
news photographs of oil-covered otters would be particularly damaging to your public image, which plays an
important role in your level of sales.
The environmentalist's conclusion assumes that the
A. oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters affected by the oil spill
B. otter population in the area of the oil spill could not have survived without the cleaning project
C. oil company has always shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action
D. government would have spent the money to clean the otters if the oil company had not agreed to do it
E. oil company's efforts toward cleaning the affected otters have been more successful than have such efforts in
previous projects to clean up oil spills


OA is A

but is C the wrong ans because of the following reason? Just want to be sure about my reasoning. It seems like a DS answer choice.

negate C

profits has been motive for not always ( 0 to 99 times); that is 0 to 99 times profit has been motive. so conclusion is true. 1 time no profit motive. concllusion false. both false and true u have. so this cant be the answer
Oil company representative: We did <something> because of X
Environmentalist: No. You did not do <something> because of X. You did <something> because of Y.

Environmentalist says it's not for X, but for Y. So, he assumes that it's either X or Y. He assumes that it can't be for both X and Y. That's what A says.

C is wrong. Argument is talking about sales, while C is discussing profits.
Negated version of C: oil company has SOMETIME shown a high regard for its profits in choosing its courses of action.. Could be true. Doesn't make the argument fall off.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)
Join the discussion

by hjafferi » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:27 pm
IMO A

A) the could have had more motives as oil spills would have led to other population being affected. Used process of elimination to get rid of other answers
B) the enviRonMentalist thinks that the biggest reason for cleaning the otters is public image. There we can assume that he thinks that the other population will be able to survive the oil spill. Which is against option B. hence this is not what he is assuming.
C) the environmentalist is opposing the company. Therefore this cannot be the answer.
D) the environmentalist thinks the purpose of public image. No comment about what would happen if the company does not do it.
E) the environmentalist does not assume that


C is wrong because the company's profits would have been reduced no matter what if it cleaned the otters. I.e additional expense would have been incurred for cleaning them. So why would the company reduce its profits because of public image.
Join the discussion